Killing Net Neutrality has brought a new call for Public Broadband

THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Commission’s 3-2 vote to repeal net neutrality rules has many worried that internet service providers will now build the same sort of tiered internet that some other countries have — where individual providers can collude to throttle traffic to certain websites and services in order to shake money from consumers or the companies themselves — or both.

For instance, in Morocco last year, multiple internet service providers worked together to briefly block voice chat services like WhatsApp and Skype, in what was interpreted by some as an attempt to push consumers to subscribe to their phone s

Killing Net Neutrality has brought a new call for Public Broadband

Just as I thought. This is like a covert operation to further cover the eyes of the Public.

A Neutered Net is a Dead one.

Mergers everywhere, it feels like they're rushing to lock it by 2020.

a reply to: ADSE255

Okay, the narrative is itself being sidelined by discussion about how much its going to cost to surf the future web.

Thats not the issue.

Behind the facade, at the bottom is control of dissemination of information. Remember this?Their "War of information" includes strangling all forms of communication that don't go with the political line. She says it straight up.

A few years after that, here we are.

a reply to: intrptr

Of course it is. They want total control of everything. These heirarchs never rush too much. The tortoise won the race, remember?

Slow an steady, that's how they like it. Like a snake eyeing it's prey. You got to pay attention to detail. They do.

How about people who want it public crowd source it and build their own socialized network?

originally posted by: ketsuko
How about people who want it public crowd source it and build their own socialized network?

Thats akin to starting your own newspaper or magazine circular. The 'Bigs' will squash you out of existence. You don't have distribution or legal rights to compete with them.

People are gong to find out what a "Monopoly" means.

a reply to: intrptr

And again, people hate big business but support government meddling that makes it possible for only the very big to survive. Then when they hate big business enough, they demand the government step in a socialize it. Either way, you end up with a monopoly and all the problems that come with it.

You cannot assume that either side is your friend. Neither are, so you need competition, not endless regulation that makes it difficult for new blood to survive and protects the very few large companies who then are forced to merge to survive.

Competition only happens through freedom of market.

The 14th Amendment should apply to corporations.

a reply to: ketsuko

You cannot assume that either side is your friend. Neither are, so you need competition, not endless regulation that makes it difficult for new blood to survive and protects the very few large companies who then are forced to merge to survive.

The Bigs today are influenced now by gubment restrictions. They started small at one time. YouTube began in a garage, now its too popular (read that too widely dispersed) ; has to be controlled , brought into line (read that: Censored) by the PTB.

Thats why all the videos I bookmarked have been "removed, sorry about that".

The new "FutureTube" available under the new internet will be censored before publication, just like TV news is today.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The 14th Amendment should apply to corporations.

Yeah, I know right.

What I always wonder about in this discussion is why nobody considers Google, Microsoft, and Facebook "big business". They were the main pushers of the Obama ruling. What was their agenda?

Also, I highly doubt that any ISP is going to start doing what people are claiming. It seems that only east coast centered ISP's considered it and I am willing to bet they had their feet firmly planted on both sides of the fence.

a reply to: xuenchen

But ... but ... but ... corporations aren't people!

a reply to: ketsuko

And..That's a YUGE problem seeing as America is a Corp.

a reply to: intrptr

Remember when Microsoft was summoned to court for being Too Big? Now Mergers are happening.

They're playing a big game of chess here, the .. pin the tail on the donkey version, and they're doing it sloppily imo.

Must be the education they got. If some dude returned from say 1886 and saw this meshiva, they'd think everyone was retarded or something. No intellect these days.

a reply to: ADSE255

So is China and more definitively. Obama did say we needed to be more like them.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, we both know how relative Obama is. Not very.

a reply to: intrptr

The new "FutureTube" available under the new internet will be censored before publication, just like TV news is today.

That's just.......awful.

And in the end, anyone with a brain will no longer go to if for news just as no one with a brain turns on Fox or CNN for news.

originally posted by: ketsuko
How about people who want it public crowd source it and build their own socialized network?

That's like saying people who want their own cell phone service, or electric service, etc should 'crowd source' it and build their own network/utility company.

Absurd.

Because of its current nature, the internet should remain a utility, as it has been.

originally posted by: ADSE255
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, we both know how relative Obama is. Not very.

Most of the regulations that helped create this condition were instituted under him and the presidents preceding him. So, yes, they are absolutely relevant.

a reply to: Liquesence

I have no problem with a public run utility ... right up until you are talking about talking all existing networks, confiscating them, and suddenly telling me that I have to belong to this new thing whether I want to or not.

That's why I say if you want your own network -- you get together with others who want it and do it.

a reply to: ketsuko

I meant he's not relative. He does what he's told.