Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Net Neutrality and Why You Should Care

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+5 more 
posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I admit to being pretty much clueless in regards to Net Neutrality and what it could mean to me.
Conspiracy theories abound, and I sure don't want more government in my life....grumble...grumble...way too much of that already. I also don't think much of Comcast etal getting fat off my monthly charges.

What's a net surfer and ATS user to believe


I subscribe to PC World's emails and got an article in FAQ format that sheds some light in the issue.
It does help understand what's going on and anything that helps my understnding of this is a good thing.

Net Neutrality and Why You Should Care

Should the government (the FCC) be given the power to mandate Net neutrality principles by force of law, or should the big ISPs have the right to police themselves? For many, the latter approach has become suspect in these days of bank collapses and offshore drilling catastrophes.

On the other hand, if you believe that a lack of rules might allow service providers to indiscriminately boost prices and limit competition on networks of the future, you might want to lend your support to the groups and legislators backing a Net neutrality law, since they claim their rules will keep the Internet more open for innovation.




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Thanks for that informative article.

So it seems to me that the whole thing boils down to the telecoms giants making a grab for bigger profits at the cost of end user choice.

I'm quite interested in the part about wireless services needing more management as a reason for being exempt for neutrality, I don't really use wireless services much, so can someone who does tell me, is the service really effected that much by people bandwidth hogging? or is this just an excuse?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

I was just discussing net neutrality on another thread. It seems that Comcast won their lawsuit against the FCC because they needed to be able to regulate a few big customers like Bit Torrent in order to prevent them from hogging bandwidth thus reducing the Internet speed of all the rest of their customers.

Who wants to revert to dial up speed?

The ruling was a victory against the Government.

boingboing.net...

[edit on 1-9-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 


Originally posted by davespanners
I'm quite interested in the part about wireless services needing more management as a reason for being exempt for neutrality, I don't really use wireless services much, so can someone who does tell me, is the service really effected that much by people bandwidth hogging? or is this just an excuse?


Until I secured my wireless network with a security code, all my neighbors were able to access my wireless service. My computer was slower that s***! Now it's fast, I'm getting what I am paying for.

If the FCC would have won their lawsuit....we'd all have to suffer because a few companies would end up with the majority of bandwidth, making the little guys upload and download speed very very slow.

You will hear arguments on both sides of this debate. You just have to research and come to your own conclusions.

But the guy who is trying to fight the ruling is an avowed Marxist. Robert McChesney of Free Press. Just take that into consideration.

www.foxnews.com...

Any ruling against the Government, is a victory for the people. IMO.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Seeing as how the government can't even run Medicare or Medicaid I wouldn't want them running anything. I mean nothing, there greed and incompetence real or faked is too much for the average sane person to believe in.

[edit on 10-04-08 by Beach Bum]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth
 


The way my broadband company deals with bandwidth hogs is that there is a download and upload limit applied at peak hours and if you break it your connection is slowed to about 1/5th of normal.
I guess that stays within the net neutrality rules because they are treating all traffic the same, even though in practice the limit is set high enough that bit torrent and a few other things are the only thing that would use the limit up.

This seems like a firer way of doing it then categorizing different types of traffic into different priorities and or making you pay more for different services.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Very few people realize how much the loss of internet neutrality or how much Google's deal with Verizon will cripple the dissemination of unbiased alternative news.

As I've asked before, how much of hype would their be about 911 if we didn't have the internet? The changes that are being made to our beloved web will be tantamount to not having the internet due to the slow-lane / fast-lane trafficking system that they'll be applying to each individual site. The cost of domestically using the internet will heftily rise in conjunction with increases in the rise of sites that will require paid subscriptions.

It's happening at very slow rate but progressively nonetheless. That's how their getting away with it.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by rexusdiablos]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
:shk: The Commies are at it again. Under the guise of "Neutrality" and "Equality" and "Fighting Corporations" they seek to take away...actual Neutrality. My 2 cents.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


If there's no Net Neutrality, and ATS has to pay fees to get "bumped" - what will be left? If members have to pay access fees - who will be left?

And if we can't afford to access alternative sites (or they can't afford to be "listed") - then what will we talk about? How will we find links, back up our arguments? Who will we quote? Ourselves?

...Will what most of us can afford just be "social networking" and "opinion forums"?

With no hard information, because that's only available to the rich?

...sounds like the end of civilization to me.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


If you cant afford paid places on the net, go to unpaid places in the net. Its the same as in real life. If you cant afford to fly to Europe, take a walk at the lake.

The Internet doesnt have to be regulated, its doing just fine.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
A large part of the problem is due to the big players wanting to turn the internet into the equivalent of a paid cable service.

Here in the UK Virgin Medias boss caused a storm when he stated internet services should be regulated and provided as a subscription service i.e. if you subscribe to a package that entitles you to the extra digital content and super fast speeds.

All sounds good but then you realise this would in effect push the 'free' internet underground or even turn the 'free' idea into a relic (like the analog terrestrial service that is all but a distant memory now).

Sure this all sounds good and for those that can afford it, it would be great but it would simply turn the net as a whole into a mainstream media controlled cesspool not different to the UK Sky Satellite service - a service designed in such a way that you have to pay for preset packages, not really having the choice of what you specifically want to see but still pay a large subscription fee.

It's about profit end of the day, the only reason the net has not evolved in line with newer technology (super fast bandwidths, high definition digital streaming services, high def online gaming etc) is because the conglomerates that have a stake hold in the technology do not want to offer it so easily.

The motivating factor is the obvious slow death of the TV and Radio services - why watch TV when you have access to terabytes of information ranging from freely available pages, to forums such as ATS to the likes of youtube and various other streaming services that are cropping up.

Its commercialism, that's the real conspiracy behind everything really, what can be controlled and through control make a profit..

My prediction is the net will fracture in two, returning to a state not to dissimilar to how it was in the 80's/90's where you had large network of underground hubs and services, hidden from the public limelight.

At the other end of this you will see super high definition digital content being pumped into public and private nodes, for those that can afford it (in effect creating a class system where only the best is available for the super elite, the majority get the HD services while the average Joey has to make do with a substandard (and diminishing) service that will always be challenged (sites being shutdown, people being persecuted and forums such as ATS becoming terrorist entities maybe?).

Adios, O



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Are you confused about Net Neutrality? Who isn’t? Some people argue it is necessary for continued innovation on the Internet, and point to Comcast’s bandwidth metering as a sign of things to come. Others claim that it is unnecessary regulation that will create unintended consequences in its wake. Opposing Views, the debate site that pits experts against each other to argue the pros and cons of the big questions of the day (read our launch review), last night put up a page on Net Neutrality. The page lays out the arguments pro and con for Net Neutrality, and then links to fuller arguments.

Marshaling the arguments for Net Neutrality are the Save The Internet Coalition, the Open Internet Coalition, and Public Knowledge. (It’s a freedom of speech issue, the ISPs are quasi-monopolies that cannot be trusted, innovation on the Web is at stake). Arguing against are the Cato Institute and Hands Off The Internet (it’s a technical issue best left to engineers, the cost of Net Neutrality will be passed onto consumers, regulation will backfire).

techcrunch.com...

[edit on 2-9-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
It's good to keep the internet in check, i mean many dont want thier "privacy" to be invaded, well in my opinion, you would only wish to have extreme privacy if you had something to hide, which is what the goverment wants to crack down on (haha i said crack down, get it? xbox 360)

So many people fight for thier rights...which dont exist, you don't have the right to plan an attack look at child pron buy or sell iilegal goods, or fraud someones account, when someone is fighting for thier rights they are either doing something iilegal or are VERY PARANOID!!! (mental disorders of all shapes and sizes...on the cat scan)

So really i dont care if they see me typing this or anything else, this is my life and this is a public forum, nothing can be done only when we lose our freedom of speech (which wont end well for anyone)

So if you have nothing to hide relax, you are fine the goverment is not out to get you nor is the boogyman, but mental disorders are and you only know what your brain is telling you, keep an open opinion about your mental health ATS users!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Anthony1138
 


Its a slippery slope first off, sure, who will try to defend the identity of a person whom is trying to muster up a terror attack, or downloading kiddy porn, or pirating music, or cyber bullying people, or spreading information that could pose a threat to civil order, or....etc etc etc...

Everything can eventually be justified once precedence is set...so, trick is, dont let it be set...deal with a few headaches in a wide open internet or deal with a eventual complete control of all information and the only leveling field the common person has against corporations and the government.

Who cares if they go after conspiracy websites, I heard they are just a bunch of domestic terrorists and civil disobedience encouraging groups anyhow...lock em up!


[edit on 3-9-2010 by SaturnFX]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by soficrow
 



The Internet doesnt have to be regulated, its doing just fine.



You're right.

Let the child porn sites go on and be created. Who needs regulations right?




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Let the child porn sites go on and be created. Who needs regulations right?



Dont impose on 99.999% of the population for the crimes of 0.001%. Let the police handle crime.

You wouldnt impose a curfew on thousands just because one person in the neighbourhood is a trouble-maker. Unless you are living in Commie-Land.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 
You know, this is just like the GWEN (Ground Wave Emergency Network) thing. The Gov says "build a radio network so we can reach out and talk to our slaves, sorry, I meant citizens in the event of a REAL emergency". and Presto!, the government says "Now all TV must be "Digital" like the day after GWEN goes online. I wonder if they figured out that the whole GWEN thing would go unnoticed. But your right, it's not the Gov trying to take over the net, it's just the same old song and dance. Gov and Corporate working together to feed us more "Space Honey". I don't know why, I'm just in a big Futurama mood tonite !





posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 
Duke Leto "The Sleeper Must Awaken !"



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
:shk: The Commies are at it again. Under the guise of "Neutrality" and "Equality" and "Fighting Corporations" they seek to take away...actual Neutrality. My 2 cents.


You know there is a term called CORPORATE COMMUNISM...

You can have the same kinds of authoritarian controls via corporate interests and THAT is what Net Neutrality PROTECTS AGAINST.



Also... if net neutrality is eliminated... you can probably kiss this website bye-bye.





new topics




 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join