Net Neutrality Is Critical. Don't Let It Die!

Why is Net Neutrality Important?

1. A free and open internet is the single greatest technology of our time, and control should not be at the mercy of corporations.
   
   
2. A free and open internet stimulates ISP competition.
   
   
3. A free and open internet helps prevent unfair pricing practices.
   
   
4. A free and open internet promotes innovation.
   
   
5. A free and open internet promotes the spread of ideas.
   
   
6. A free and open internet drives entrepreneurship.
   
   
7. A free and open internet protects freedom of speech.
   

In a nutshell, net neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated equally by internet service providers. This means that an ISP should not have the ability to throttle or prioritize certain packets of information for whatever reason. Net neutrality proposes that ISPs should not be able to create multiple tiers of accessibility and all services, be it Netflix or a small streaming upstart, should have the same prioritization when sending data through a given network.

Without net neutrality regulations, it is argued that ISPs could have too much power in controlling access to content that better serves their business interests. This could result in some websites getting throttled because they report information critical of certain corporations, or deals being struck between ISPs and companies that may directly or indirectly result in the monopolizing of markets. The inventor of the world wide web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, summed up the issue in an open letter in 2015: "The Web evolved into a powerful and ubiquitous platform because I was able to build it on an open network that treated all packets of information equally. This principle of net neutrality has kept the Internet a free and open space since its inception."

What Is Net Neutrality?
The Open Internet

Here's a T&C friendly version of a very important thread that got pulled for a silly reason.

If Net Neutrality dies it will have a negative impact on the Internet as we know it. Sites like Above Top Secret would be affected directly, as would the amount of money the owners of this site would generate from it's continued operation. Services like Netflix, Youtube, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, or any other example of a large streaming or social media platform would have fees attached to their usage. The Majority of 'free packets' would be used to traffic ISP approved traffic only as they would favor their own private networks heavily. Outside traffic would be piped through a much smaller and much slower section of their networks.

Chairman Pai and the new FCC wants to kill Net Neutrality and turn over control of the Internet's enforcement to the ISP's who provide the service. Chairman Pai wants to replace the agency’s strong rules with “voluntary” conditions that no ISP would ever comply with. The Trump administration is doing everything in its power to clamp down on dissent. If Net Neutrality dies, the freedom of the Internet dies with it. It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, keeping the Internet in tact in its current state is a benefit to consumers, a benefit to businesses, and a benefit to the common good of humanity given the freedom to express itself in any way it chooses.

Because of T&C's on the site I can't link you to any particular sites where you may be able to become active in the process of saving Net Neutrality. I would like to point out that Above Top Secret has been active in this fight in the past... And personally, as a long time member, I would like to encourage the Above Network and the 3 Amigos to remain an active participant in protecting the Internet community that supports them.

For those who want to find out more a simple Google search should suffice. Keep the Internet free. Team Internet for life!

They are already pulling advertising anything that has a message that goes against the mainstream narrstive.

This will probably backfire in their face as the energy of the sine wave continues to oscilate in a different direction

a reply to: toysforadults

I think that means you're saying you support Team Internet. For that I applaud you!

a reply to: AnonyMason

You really think the weaponized autism is going to let it happen?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

No. But if I can piss enough people off in the mean time maybe there will be some kind of pitched resistance.

It's obvious that the Donald and the respective Majority are going to give all the power to the corporations... Corporate oligarchical fascism is the new trend.

I'm doing this to raise a little awareness and for the non line towing portion of the members. I think there's still folks around who like to ask questions. I even think some of the ownership and staff understand this issue and why it's critical to how we use the Internet.

Is Net Neutrality going to die? Probably

Does that mean i have to be happy about it? Not for a single minute.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Don't forget the part Google plays in this. ISP's throttling speed is one thing, but Google prioritizes things more than any other search engine once you do get in. My experience tells me that the way Google changes its algorithms will always have an effect on the people who get caught in this web. The ISP's may have some control over where people get in, but Google has more of an effect than ISP's once they do get in.

But really, I think the notion of net neutrality has seen it's day. I could get behind it if it were still 1995, but it's not. Back when this town was still getting populated and people were filling it with new ideas, by all means, take in everyone who wants to come in. But by now, I really don't think we're going to see or hear anything new, so the time might be right to streamline what's here and, again, this is where search engines like Google would play a very important hand.

All the Silk Road/Pedophile/Deep Web/Hardcore porn/Gun and Drug dealing outcasts should NEVER be allowed here. You can't tell me that the tech. needed to keep them out isn't here, I know better.

I agree with you to a point Mason, an easily and equally accessible internet can be the best thing in the world for a lot of people, but to say that ALL internet traffic should be treated equally is naive at best, and dangerous at worst.

a reply to: AnonyMason

I think the war is almost over already. Net neutrality will be a memory by close of this decade imo. The sheer bloody-mindedness of these assholes knows no bounds.

They don't listen to tech experts or anyone who has a 'neutral' perspective. They listen to the big power brokers who have vested interests against net neutrality. Trump's administration will kick it over a cliff and Western governments (NZ, Australia, UK, Holland etc) are almost there anyway.

Once it's done, it's done.

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

Yes but what do you think about Net Neutrality?

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

Google has taken the stance of silence in regards to Net Neutrality. Ever since they've partnered with Verizon and been developing cell phone technology their support for Net Neutrality has changed. Before they were an active lobbyist and supporter of Net Neutrality laws because let's face it, if it was for the free and open society that the Internet helped create Google would not exist as we know it today. The same can be said for Netflix, Hulu, Xbox Live, The Playstation Network, Steam, etc. Take your pick. Sadly, Google stands to make a lot of money if them and their partners in the industry are the key holders to what content gets priority online.

The problem with the deep web is that no matter what happens with Net Neutrality the dark corners of the Internet are always going to exist. The technology that we have available to us today will never truly be censor proof. This means that things like Tor, I2P, or Freenet can't be stopped as long as their are people out there who are techh savvy enough to set them up and use them. While this can be used for bad things, like your examples of weapons dealings or the silk road, it can also be used for good like protecting journalists sources, organizing political opposition, sharing music and movies, or just hosting a free chat service.

As far as pornography goes: the Internet was built by pornography. The technology was driven by porn. That's a fact. The demands for faster Internet connection speeds were mostly coming from people who wanted to view or were hosting web sites for? Downloading porn. So we can thank porno for it's part in advancing the technology that we all enjoy today. Also: unless it's pedo related (in which case the providers and patrons should be hunted down and arrested) porno is not illegal.

We can't censor one section of the Internet and still call it free. To be free means it's truly free. As long as it's not exploiting any one or causing an individual pain (bullying) it should be a part of the open platform we enjoy. No one forces another to type a specific URL into their browser. If you don't want to view those parts of the Internet you don't have to.

a reply to: Kandinsky

The UK is a good example, for sure. They have some pretty silly laws about their Internet.

Countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, and a whole mess of African states have pretty insane Internet controls in place. I remember when Telecomix and Anonymous linked up and started providing dial up connections in Tunisia so the citizens could contact journalists, family on the outside and other activists to try and get some help in late 2010-2011.

I guess thats where my mind always wanders too. If Internet censorship becomes a widespread reality it's just one more tool that the governments of the world, particularly the government of the US can use to silence dissenting opinion. I don't ever expect nor do i necessarily want to agree with everyone all the time. But protecting our right to have an opinion and speak it wherever we want is something that we should all try to protect.

It's true though. The writing is on the wall. Net Neutrality as we have today is likely going to die despite our efforts to keep it alive.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
but to say that ALL internet traffic should be treated equally is naive at best, and dangerous at worst.

Yes, only large corporations should have fast speeds. tiny startups and p2p nonsense should be squeezed until they simply wilt and die.

That sound a bit hyperbole?

Who do you think will be getting the biggest slice of the speed pie?
This has nothing to do with dodgy websites (what is dodgy to you may be fine to me..consider the sort of haphazardly method of silencing conservatives on social media. Put this into the concept that the big players (google and such) are becoming more sjw'ish by the day. Conservatives should be laying on the railroad tracks to stop anything messing with net neutrality because they are right in the crosshairs should government let go and let megacorps take over.

Gonna be hard to pin that on Obama when the right wing plutocrats have been trying to burn down the internets neutrality since its inception. short sighted fools.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Sure. Censorship is less of an issue to Western givs who see the value of letting people speak openly. They can listen in instead. China prefers the censorship route so ideas don't spread. I believe both styles are still about control. Then again, Australia's firewall approach mixes the two and retains control in its own way.

In general, I'm more worried that the internet will become an expensive luxury instead of the 'utility' that it currently is. Paywalls, adverts and obligations to click links to proceed to sites. It's like we'll have a frigging timer and be charged for time spent looking at a page.

If the governments get their way, we'll all have licenses and that's when the fun will start. An individual with a ID number offers lots of opportunities to online businesses.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Taupin Desciple

Yes but what do you think about Net Neutrality?

He was pretty clear. he is against it. Not really making any sense why, but the politicians who have a extremely significant corporate interest said its a good idea to destroy neutrality.

because kids and drugs and stuff or something (which ending NN will have zero effect on)

a reply to: AnonyMason

If Net Neutrality is ended would there emerge over time a 'Net Replacement' - something like IP over FM radio, or simply voice over AM, or maybe ol' fashioned books over Fax, say - that subverts a 'Throttled Internet'?

Perhaps TPTB may consider the emergence of a communication medium that cannot be so easily monitored as a bigger threat than a Neutral Net, which can be monitored.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: Deaf Alien

No. But if I can piss enough people off in the mean time maybe there will be some kind of pitched resistance.

It's obvious that the Donald and the respective Majority are going to give all the power to the corporations... Corporate oligarchical fascism is the new trend.

I'm doing this to raise a little awareness and for the non line towing portion of the members. I think there's still folks around who like to ask questions. I even think some of the ownership and staff understand this issue and why it's critical to how we use the Internet.

Is Net Neutrality going to die? Probably

Does that mean i have to be happy about it? Not for a single minute.

This seems to be in partisan territory now as to who cares about it.

The update on the thread was "Trump signs internet privacy repeal" and will probably sign away Net Neutrality.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

More:

The Trump administration served notice on Thursday that its next move to deregulate broadband internet service companies would be to jettison the Obama administration’s net neutrality rules, which were intended to safeguard free expression online.

The net neutrality rules, approved by the Federal Communications Commission in 2015, aimed to preserve the open internet and ensure that it could not be divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for web and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else.

Source
Sean Spicer says these are affecting telecoms and net services.
What do you know, the oligarchy rules, who cares about small sites and community ones!

Should not be a surprise to anyone that votes GOP. They have been trying to go this route for a couple of years now and were only blocked by the Obama Admin and the former FCC chair.

a reply to: AnonyMason

I completely agree with you.

We must stand before the tide, and be prepared to break the wave, to hold it back. We must be prepared to put all our strength and reserve of wit, behind the effort to retain freedom, digitally, and in every aspect of existence.

There was such a huge resistance to ending Net Neutrality last time. It's like crickets now.

Net Neutrality is akin to telling all car makers that all vehicles have to hold the same amount of people and have the same speed capabilities (yes, that's massively simplified, but hopefully you can understand the point). No, a SMART car shouldn't be forced to seat as many people as a shuttle bus, nor should a dump truck be necessitated to reach the same speeds as a Porsche. Different needs for different people--choice is a great thing.

I have a bigger vested interest in limiting the control that our federal government has over private businesses than worrying about whether or not internet speeds and bandwidth and everything is fairly distributed. The government shouldn't have any control over the access to the internet whatsoever--it's not theirs to control or limit in any way, nor is it their role to regulate companies that do provide that service in such ways that the net-neutrality laws allow.

On its face, the law seemed well-intentioned at first, but the more that I considered it, the more that I realized that giving the federal government control over yet another avenue of regulation is not a good thing.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Uh, no. Net neutrality is like saying all cars can go 70mph on a freeway, without regard as to who makes them or sells them. What the donald and his ilk are pushing is like saying "Well, if you (GM, Ford, etc) pay us, then your kind of car can go 70, but if you don't pay us extra (new maker of cars), then you can only go 40."