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.

 

Is Net Neutrality A Communist Plot? ("Declassified DoD Film")

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   


Net neutality, which is the state of the internet today, is being threatened by right-wing forces.

Before we had net neutality, internet providers could select which sites an internet user could visit, either blocking access entirely or making delivery slower and more difficult.

Providers made piles of money (shown in the film) by charging advertisers and web sites for access to their customers.

This was the state of things in the mid-90's. I remember I had AOL at that time and recall the strict walls around my access to the net. There was so much I couldn't see or participate in or even be aware existed. There was a world of difference between then and the freedom of information I have today, under net neutrality.

John McCain has recently introduced an "Internet Freedom" bill in Congress. But freedom for you and me is not what it's about. This bill would once again allow providers to restrict and censor free access to the internet and make huge profits in the process.

Those of us who value our freedom to use and explore the net freely need to make our voices heard. Keep net neutrality!





[edit on 27-10-2009 by Sestias]




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
My understanding is there is new legislation titled "Net Neutrality".

The net is good today - all new legislation or alteration should be entirely resisted.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 

No, net neutrality is what we already have.

The proposed new legislation is called "net freedom" or "internet freedom." Anyway, it has the word "freedom" in it, which is terribly misleading.

Net neutrality is what the DoD film was calling a Communist plot in the video posted.

I agree with you that all new legislation should be resisted.


[edit on 27-10-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Very interesting media choice, sarcasm dually noted, lol.


It get's the point across and, keeps it simple enough and doesn't scream WOLF!!! as so many sansationalised media does these days.

Ok, the following is more of an inspired rant, caused by this topic. And in no way or fasion is directed at the author, or particular member or members in general.

It is, an opinion of mine and is directed towards the "sheeple" in general.

[rant]
Not a bad video, how ever it wasn't a threat to our open forms of communication and media, that had my attention today. In a time when the internet is in my opinion very far from being censored.

Especially, like the days in which it was more so.

It was the vote on whether or not our government would continue supporting the Unemployement Insurance "the people" have come to depend upon these days.

I watched the speaches and saw how the vote unfolded today on Cspan and it was in favor.

So what, some may ask.
For starters, some voted against it, although they had no problem raising their own income due to costs of living. Some thing the general American hasn't seen.

Well, for those who don't understand, that (a failure to support comtinued Unemployent Insurance), would have meant 2 million people would be with out any means to collect financial stability. By January...

The money they worked towards (while employed), for insureing themselves while unemployed, would be 0 and not a peso more.

Instead of worrying about hollow threats to restrict freedom of speach as it is percieved, or how big bad brother is out to get us, or that the US military is some kind of threat to the people and Constitution they swore to support and defend.

My suggestion, do some thinking of ones own, and not believeing nearly half the propaganda from Tom, Dick and Harriets media bazaar.

For all it is worth, people these days may as well say the earth is flat.




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I don't remember such problems with AOL in that manner. As I remember it, the problem was mostly dealing with the way AOL itself worked and operated.

Which is why AOL went from being the biggest, to "are they still in business?".



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


There is no net neutrality, that is what is being fought for. Services are already prioritised. Corporations pay for quality of service, which means as far as your ISP is concerned, the business traffic is more important than your domestic traffic. That is a decision, as a business, your ISP is perfectly entitled to make. This load of crap about people owning the internet, it's laughable when most people do not even own the modem sitting next to their computer. The internet is a business, it will do whatever is profitable.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


I can't speak for other countries, but in the United States we currently have Net Neutrality, to some extent, thanks to the FCC (one of the only things they've done right, imo).

What I am referring to is the 2005 IPS:



In 2005, the FCC issued its Broadband Policy Statement (also known as the Internet Policy Statement), which lists four principles of open internet[14], "To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:"

* access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
* run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
* connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
* competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.



Wiki


Anyway, what that gives us is essentially a very limited form of net neutrality in the US. The FCC has been on the case of isp's who break these rules, if anyone recalls the whole fiasco with Comcast throttling bandwidth (I used Comcast at the time, so I remember it pretty clearly).



Currently, the FCC is, thankfully, voting to expand their net neutrality laws to basically make it illegal for ISP's to throttle any bandwidth. This is a good thing! You pay for your internet service, you pay for your router, your high-speed connection devices and your electronics that you hook up. You should be able to access 100% of the bandwidth available to you, that you have paid for.

However, Senator John McCain is trying to pass the "Internet Freedom Act" (possibly the most ironic title ever), which would prevent net neutrality and allow isp's to throttle any connection for essentially any reason.

This could be the death-knell of the internet as we know it. If this is passed we could end up with net censorship like they have in China.

Republican, Democrat or Independent, we need to start standing up to this bull#. Yes, it is a Republican bill, but partisan politics shouldn't stop people from realizing it is a stupid bill. John McCain is trying to take internet freedom away, and we should all be able to see it.

Basically what it comes down to is this:

"Internet Freedom Act" = freedom for isp's to decide what sites you should be able to visit, how much bandwidth you should be allocated, and what programs/devices you should be allowed to connect to the internet.

"Net Neutrality" = freedom for you to use the internet you pay for in the manner you see fit.



[edit on 28-10-2009 by drwizardphd]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
reply to post by quackers
 


I can't speak for other countries, but in the United States we currently have Net Neutrality, to some extent.


You either do or you don't. "To some extent" says you don't.

The fcc info is interesting though. What is "lawful internet content", who decides that and what measures are in place to prevent unlawful content? Could it maybe be censorship of some sort? Is that content filtered? Is filtered content any part of the ethos of net neutrality? Your fcc info contradicts your own statement of the US already having neutrality.

Legal devices? What is an illegal device? No net neutrality for you if you are using an illegal device? Lawful services? Who decides that? Is that international or local?

Far from neutral, I think you have nicely proven my point. Thank you.

Good luck on the throttling aspect, I'm sure the respective **AA's will have fun with that one.



[edit on 28-10-2009 by quackers]

[edit on 28-10-2009 by quackers]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 

Well, maybe you can argue that we don't have total net neutrality now. But don't be fooled by the McCain bill and its deceptive title. That bill is designed to give the ISP's even more power.




top topics



 
4

log in

join