None of you are talking about net neutrality. Why?

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I don't like the idea of corporations controlling information.

The internet may one day save societies by informing them of truths media won't talk about.

Some of us are unwilling to just throw our hands in the air and accept it. We're tired of being pushed around by the government and corporations.

But I will say you're right about the ACA being garbage, I just don't think it parallels with this discussion... That doesn't belittle that topic, just a different time and place as that quagmire was worse in many incomparable ways.

I think the basic problem is that few understand what Net Neutrality really means.

Earlier in the thread someone showed a picture of different rates charged by ISPs for up & down load speeds. This is not Net Neutrality.

This - exploitation - is about speed of access.

But net neutrality is about availablity and speed of access from the various providers. The same ISPs that overcharge US citizens for paltry access speeds want to charge websites for 'exposer' and speed. If AT&T didn't like ATS and ATS was unable to pay them, they would be able to ratchet down your receipt of the website and perhaps even block it altogether.

I think 'breitbart' has the money to pay....

Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked.

In 2015, millions of activists pressured the Federal Communications Commission to adopt historic Net Neutrality rules that keep the internet free and open — allowing you to share and access information of your choosing without interference.

But right now this win is in jeopardy: Trump’s FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, wants to destroy Net Neutrality. In May, the FCC voted to let Pai’s internet-killing plan move forward. By the end of the summer, the agency was flooded with more than 20 million comments. The vast majority of people commenting urged the FCC to preserve the existing Net Neutrality rules.

www.savetheinternet.com...

www.eff.org...

Already - those unwilling or unable to pay are getting pushed down the rankings in Google.

I just googled the above and the Electronic Freedom Foundation wasn't on the front page. They are a non-profit - they can't afford paying out more.

And if the ISPs and Google don't like your politics or content - you don't support the extortion business model on the internet. You aren't a big retailer but a small one. Well you are **** out of luck without Net Neutrality. It's a common carrier issue - look it up.

a reply to: Tearman

Meh.

Everyone LUV's them that Net Neutrality here.

I'm against it.

I think there are like 3 others.

a reply to: DBCowboy

May I ask why you are opposed to net neutrality?

None of you are talking about net neutrality. Why?

Because conservatives seem to believe that the government telling private corporations that they shouldn't price gouge customers and restrict their access to information is big government and government overreach.

Some of these people fear government control over their lives (despite electing people into positions of power within government) but are just fine with having corporations have control over their lives (despite having nothing more than their wallet to hold them back).

a reply to: FyreByrd

Exactly.

If website X pays more to a telecomm provider its content will be widely available and streamed faster. Website B doesn't have the revenue, so its content will be throttled and not as widely available.

In this instance, money will dictate the availability of content, not on the end of the consumer per se (although it also can) but on the part of the content provider and the service provider.

Money will drive content availability and speed.

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: DBCowboy

May I ask why you are opposed to net neutrality?

Net neutrality pros and cons

Pros of net neutrality regulation
•Network neutrality avoids that ISPs charge online services such as XBox Live, Playstation Plus, Skype, and Netflix for "fast lanes". These extra costs for "fast lanes" are problematic because they can make the services more expensive for internet users and also may prevent small companies from the capacity to compete with the big companies who have the budget to reach agreements with ISPs.
•Net neutrality avoids discrimination among users ensuring similar access to information for people of different socio-economic status. Without neutrality, high-speed internet for entertainment could be prioritized over education. And ISPs could change premium fees (“pay-to-play”) to enjoy special access to public libraries, benefiting the richest people.
•Network neutrality helps to promote freedom of choice, as ISPs cannot obstruct or incentivize particular contents or sites over others.
•Anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules prevent the capacity of ISPs to arbitrary decide to limit access or promote some type of content.The role of ISPs is to only "transport" data to the users that have paid for delivery, and therefore they should not shape content consumption patterns.
•Net neutrality promotes a level playing field for competing companies.

Cons of net neutrality regulation
•Regulation imposing net neutrality would limit new business ideas and concepts and could be considered against free market rules.
•Sponsored content and “pay-to-play” schemes may go against the net neutrality spirit, but they can help companies improve the overall service they offer. Heavier internet users may be charged more. With that extra money ISPs could increase the bandwith for all internet users.
•Thanks to sponsorships some mobile telecom operators may offer free internet access to some contents. This may enable those who don’t have data contracts on their smartphones to surf some areas in the internet for free. Similarly, it would reduce the consumption of other users’ data allotments.
•Regulation for net neutrality may limit the tools of governments and ISPs to fight against online “piracy”. Material infringing copyright laws will be easilty shared using P2P software. ISPs or governments won't be able to block or filter these contents, if net neutrality is fully respeced. Similarly net neutrality rules make more difficult to monitor and control controversial adult content.
•Some defenders of net neutrality question government intervention. For them it should emerge organically or naturally but not imposed through laws.

netivist.org...

To me, the cons outweighed the pros.

*shrugs*

I sit in a fairly high technology position at one of the worlds largest companies. I think I have a better than most understanding of technology and the internet and how it shapes our world today.


With that said, Net Neutrality (NN) has only been a law for just under 1000 days. 1000 days. The Internet has been around in modern format for over 9604 days.

What happened for the first ~8600 days before NN?


Can anyone link to me some POSITIVE effects from NN being implemented that has made a tangible difference to us as consumers?

Edit


And finally a question for you, the proponent of NN: Is a nuetral Internet one that the government isn't involved in?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I can see where you are coming from. Thanks for politely stating your case

a reply to: DBCowboy

We all want our ISPs and cable TV providers but that doesn't mean we like them.

Both industries have sunk even lower in the ranks of customer satisfaction, according to a report released Tuesday by the American Customer Satisfaction Index. The rating for Internet service providers fell by 3.1 percent from a year ago to a score of 63 on a 100-point scale. The grade for subscription TV providers dropped by 4.4 percent to 65.

Both industries are at the bottom of the barrel for customer satisfaction among the 43 tracked in total by ACSI.

cnet

I take it you trust these companies to use profits for the consumer.

So deregulation in an industry that has the lowest consumer ratings? I don't see the plus side.

Most people live in monopolized areas with no competition. It's a reality, and I don't see deregulation (I'd hardly call forcing them to provide what's promised is regulation) helping at all.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Cons of net neutrality regulation
•Regulation imposing net neutrality would limit new business ideas and concepts and could be considered against free market rules.

That's pure speculation and never stopped websites and online businesses from being developed before. Net Neutrality is, essentially, a pre-emptive strike at what Internet Service Providers were starting to do. Example: throttling your access to certain websites, adding data caps to restrict your access.

•Sponsored content and “pay-to-play” schemes may go against the net neutrality spirit, but they can help companies improve the overall service they offer. Heavier internet users may be charged more. With that extra money ISPs could increase the bandwith for all internet users.

Speaking of pay-to-play: have you seen the backlash against the new Star Wars video game? You pay $80 for a brand-new game and then you can either 'work' for the additional content for a few thousand hours or pay a few thousand dollars and access the content outright.

There are some websites that are attempting to generate additional revenue through paid access, The Washington Post and The New York Times come to mind. That's money you pay for a subscription service though, like Hulu or Netflix, this isn't a payment imposed by your ISP or the government.

•Thanks to sponsorships some mobile telecom operators may offer free internet access to some contents. This may enable those who don’t have data contracts on their smartphones to surf some areas in the internet for free. Similarly, it would reduce the consumption of other users’ data allotments.

That's assuming that the internet you're already accessing isn't 'free.' Other than your flat rate for access, you're paying the same amount to access ATS as you are to access Facebook or Breitbart or ShareBlue. Without Net Neutrality a 'sponsorship' may only come from very large and profitable websites, like Facebook or Breitbart. Yay, free access to those websites but you have to pay to access other websites.

•Regulation for net neutrality may limit the tools of governments and ISPs to fight against online “piracy”. Material infringing copyright laws will be easilty shared using P2P software. ISPs or governments won't be able to block or filter these contents, if net neutrality is fully respeced. Similarly net neutrality rules make more difficult to monitor and control controversial adult content.
•Some defenders of net neutrality question government intervention. For them it should emerge organically or naturally but not imposed through laws.

The words 'may limit' is truly a scare tactic because Net Neutrality absolutely does not limit enforcing existing Trademark and Copyright law. What it may help with is blanket and AI enforced Trademark and Copyright reporting. Example: Say you make a vlog on YouTube of you walking down a busy street, a car drives by with it's windows down playing the current #1 pop-song, this audio is caught on your microphone and now, you either have to cut that out or face de-monetization of your video because you caught 5 seconds of a Copyrighted piece of music.

Further example; what if someone links YouTube music video on a thread here on ATS? Currently, no one cares. What if some web-scouring AI bot flags it and reports ATS to their ISP? Now ATS is down pending Copyright review. Now they're losing ad revenue because no one can access the website. How long do you think a small-time website can operate like that?

a reply to: Tearman

The lobbyist force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. The CEOs and billionaire cabal own the lobbyists. And the lobbyists own the politicians.

The death of net neutrality is just another example of government by and for the corporations.

CORPORATIONS ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tearman

The lobbyist force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. The CEOs and billionaire cabal own the lobbyists. And the lobbyists own the politicians.

The death of net neutrality is just another example of government by and for the corporations.

CORPORATIONS ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

You know you don't HAVE to by the product, right?

Google is the best example of what we're headed for. Google anything and the first four or five links are paid for. That's how you get good ranking. The small business isn't going to pay Google's rates so the appear at the bottom of page one if they're lucky or on page two if they aren't.

I switch to DuckDuckGo to not put all the money in Google's pocket but their ability to find what I need is limited. I switched back to Google. It looks like we need a new Internet.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Tearman

The lobbyist force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. The CEOs and billionaire cabal own the lobbyists. And the lobbyists own the politicians.

The death of net neutrality is just another example of government by and for the corporations.

CORPORATIONS ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

You know you don't HAVE to by the product, right?

So by that logic we should just decide that the lowest rated industry can gouge us more?

Or we can get the service promised to us, barely regulation.

Any industry with the lowest customer approval should be regulated, especially when most Americans only have one choice locally.

a reply to: Tempter

Considering the internet is pretty much considered a necessity of life, yea you kinda do have to buy it.

originally posted by: Tempter
I sit in a fairly high technology position at one of the worlds largest companies. I think I have a better than most understanding of technology and the internet and how it shapes our world today.


With that said, Net Neutrality (NN) has only been a law for just under 1000 days. 1000 days. The Internet has been around in modern format for over 9604 days.

What happened for the first ~8600 days before NN?


Can anyone link to me some POSITIVE effects from NN being implemented that has made a tangible difference to us as consumers?

Edit


And finally a question for you, the proponent of NN: Is a nuetral Internet one that the government isn't involved in?

Should we remove protections and open the floodgates?

I see some of you saying people will vote with their dollars, and that will keep ISPs legit. But what about people living in areas where they don't have options? And what happens if the public becomes complacent? Then, pay to speak becomes the norm on the internet, and as a medium for the exchange of information, it will belong to amazon, and facebook, and the other big players. As if those people don't have enough influence as it is!

To believe ISPs aren't and never will try to get up to shenanigans is putting a lot of misplaced trust in them.

I'm not saying there aren't big problems that don't need to be addressed, such as network congestion caused by bandwitdh hogs. We ought to invest in an overhaul of our infrastructure.

I'm still PISSED,because computers are hard and killed my chance at art school....ALSO I can't debate on any level so it 's BAD for my ego.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: DBCowboy

May I ask why you are opposed to net neutrality?

Net neutrality pros and cons

Pros of net neutrality regulation
•Network neutrality avoids that ISPs charge online services such as XBox Live, Playstation Plus, Skype, and Netflix for "fast lanes". These extra costs for "fast lanes" are problematic because they can make the services more expensive for internet users and also may prevent small companies from the capacity to compete with the big companies who have the budget to reach agreements with ISPs.
•Net neutrality avoids discrimination among users ensuring similar access to information for people of different socio-economic status. Without neutrality, high-speed internet for entertainment could be prioritized over education. And ISPs could change premium fees (“pay-to-play”) to enjoy special access to public libraries, benefiting the richest people.
•Network neutrality helps to promote freedom of choice, as ISPs cannot obstruct or incentivize particular contents or sites over others.
•Anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules prevent the capacity of ISPs to arbitrary decide to limit access or promote some type of content.The role of ISPs is to only "transport" data to the users that have paid for delivery, and therefore they should not shape content consumption patterns.
•Net neutrality promotes a level playing field for competing companies.

Cons of net neutrality regulation
•Regulation imposing net neutrality would limit new business ideas and concepts and could be considered against free market rules.
•Sponsored content and “pay-to-play” schemes may go against the net neutrality spirit, but they can help companies improve the overall service they offer. Heavier internet users may be charged more. With that extra money ISPs could increase the bandwith for all internet users.
•Thanks to sponsorships some mobile telecom operators may offer free internet access to some contents. This may enable those who don’t have data contracts on their smartphones to surf some areas in the internet for free. Similarly, it would reduce the consumption of other users’ data allotments.
•Regulation for net neutrality may limit the tools of governments and ISPs to fight against online “piracy”. Material infringing copyright laws will be easilty shared using P2P software. ISPs or governments won't be able to block or filter these contents, if net neutrality is fully respeced. Similarly net neutrality rules make more difficult to monitor and control controversial adult content.
•Some defenders of net neutrality question government intervention. For them it should emerge organically or naturally but not imposed through laws.

netivist.org...

To me, the cons outweighed the pros.

*shrugs*

The cons are mostly fabrications.

Example:

With that extra money ISPs could increase the bandwith for all internet users.

Telecoms are already rolling in money.
The big ones are even given money to expand their service by the government.
They just aren't doing that; in fact, the only ones increasing bandwidth are the small ISPs who are now rolling out fiber networks.

originally posted by: Skyfloating
The reason the Internet is so good is because its unregulated free-market anarchy. Leave it alone, leave it to the free market and everyone will find the offers that suit them best.

The internet is not currently a free market. Under the proposed changed it will be even less of one. You cannot have a free market, when your service providers have monopoly status, and barriers to entry too high to allow any competition to form up.