Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Net Neutrality and Why You Should Care

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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.


Umm... we already do that for children under 18...




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I didnt realize we had curfews in the United States.


Im not saying children shouldnt be protected from crime.

But a company charging money for their services is no crime.

Like in the real world there will always be places to get stuff for free and places where you pay for stuff.

Not interfering with the natural development of the Internet, thats true Neutrality. Telling people how to live and what to do, thats not Neutrality.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Skyfloating]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
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.


Bad analogy, imho. To me, the Internet is like a public library - it's not about travel or luxury vacations.

The FREE Internet - Net Neutrality - allows free access to information, which promotes free education and knowledge, which supports democracy.

No Net Neutrality means Economic Barriers to knowledge - we go back to the old days when only the rich and powerful had access to information, and the unfettered ability to run circles around the masses aka run the world. From the OP...


...the term "Net neutrality" is accepted shorthand for the idea that Internet service providers shouldn't be allowed to block, degrade, or charge extra for legal content and applications that run on the Net--an idea that has pretty much been the standard operating procedure since the Internet's start, but one that has never been codified into enforceable law.





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


There have been cases already where legitimate access has been blocked.
AND...

The "Internet Business Development Plan" involves charging customers and providers premium fees to connect to each other. ...


...consumer advocates who favor Net neutrality regulations say they are needed to ensure that service providers don't use their market strength to turn the Internet into a place where they can charge both customers and content and application providers premium fees to connect to each other.


The print industry is practically dead - public libraries are going online - the Internet soon will be our only source of information. Without Net Neutrality, we're back to the pre-industrial age - when it was illegal for commoners to learn to read and write, and acquire knowledge.

Only this time around, it's just economic barriers, not laws, that keep us down - uninformed and ignorant.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by soficrow]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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.


Once again, you're right. Let's not regulate the internet and let minors be exploited and used for pornography.

Dear god, get a grip. The government controls the highways you drive on, the schools you go or went to, the military age, the voting age, the smoking age, etc. God forbid the government actually doing something good for once when it comes to child porn, right?

Oh lawd, NOT COMMUNISM.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
It seems like posters in this thread have the wrong idea about net neutrality.

Presently it's not going to change people who get broadband through cable or DSL. Instead, Verizon, et al want to regulate internet going into smartphones on mobile networks, which use proxy servers to access the Internet. The issue is establishing the big boys such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube as a staple on the Internet, which is probably better for the stock market than for the end-user.

Without net neutrality, Verizon could make Twitter updates complete faster than other API-based transmissions, such as LiveJournal, or even a small instant messenger service run by a new start-up (which would only be usable on a Droid device, ironically).

For example, people who live overseas have become mostly self-reliant in terms of what they do on the web. Other countries even have their own video-sharing sites. A foreign tourist in America cannot access his favorite content on his jailbroken iPhone, and must instead carry a laptop with him (or risk borrowing someone else's computer). This kind of inconvenience could be avoided if Verizon did not enact its proposed measures.

People accessing the web on a smartphone tend to be less patient waiting for a website to load, than people on a regular computer, so it can become a form of favoritism.

However, Verizon does have a point: it's possible to use a Droid device to scan a barcode and then illegally download the corresponding product off Bittorrent. However, a simple solution to this could be to ban Bittorrent. After all, you don't want your phone to get viruses, do you?

With all of this in mind, the government is not completely off the hook. They want to exploit the net neutrality situation to take near-absolute control of the Internet itself. I've heard people like Alex Jones say that the president could develop a kill-switch - something actually feasible with the current proposal.

So, on this issue, neither side is 100% right.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by vcwxvwligen]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 

I'm learning more and more about this net neutrality thing, although much of it seems a bit murky to me and I'll bet that's intentional.
If "they" told us what was going one, there would be no need to wonder and have a bunch of conspiracy angles....as is true with much of life these days.

I heartily agree that there is a pro and a con to both side of the issue.
Thanks for your explanation.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


Since most of those servers are from eastern-European countries, to the best of my understanding, how does the US Government gaining control to regulate information stop children from being exploited?

No one is arguing that children should be exploited, that is an absurd position to take. This is about freedom of information and like all forms of liberty they come at a cost. Denying me access to an unregulated internet because other people have unlawful inclinations is flat out wrong and unjustified.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


I admire your concerns about the exploitation of children, we all do. If the Government wants to stop these sites from comming online, they already have the power to do so. Considering that it is already a crime to begin with, the Gov has the power to shut down the sites that are comming from servers in the US.


Under a new bill in Congress, the President would have the power to shut down the internet for up to 4 months in the event of an emergency. We note in this article that it is our view that no such bill is necessary and that the President could simply issue an executive order to do the same.

It looks like neither the bill or the executive order would be required to take action to shut down elements of the internet, as it is clear that traditional government intimidation will suffice to completely shut down large web hosting servers if the powers that be deem it necessary and put pressure on the internet service providers. According to the news site TorrentFreak, the government has moved to completely shut down all web sites hosted on the Wordpress hosting platform Blogetry.

www.shtfplan.com...


Regulating the Internet is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to total Government control of free political speech, thought, and ideas.



The government, because of the actions of a few, has essentially ignored first amendment protections and punished citizens who are completely innocent of any wrong-doing.

The criminal web sites in question were hosted on Blogetry and were reportedly engaged in piracy of MP3 audio files, software applications and pornography. Rather than specifically shutting down these web sites, the government moved to eliminate 73,000 Wordpress blogs that had absolutely no association with criminal activity.

This is akin to the federal agents raiding an entire neighborhood belonging to the same home owners association because one or two of the residents are suspected of dealing drugs.

It’s absolutely ridiculous on its face.

www.shtfplan.com...

[edit on 3-9-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


In real life some things are free, some things are not. In the Internet most things will always be free because there is no way all the data can be controlled or owned by any one entity.

Thinking some service provider who starts charging money for access to content can control the Internet is wrong.

If Wikipedia wants to provide all information in the world for free, it will. But if Corporation X wants to provide its information against pay, it will.

This idea is called Freedom. Freedom of Trade and Freedom from Trade.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

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



I dont need protection against Corporate Interests. I can protect myself just fine.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I don't see how any choice is going to benefit us in the future. Both sides have agenda on their own. The government is unreliable when it comes to neutrality. The Google-Verizon alliance agenda is profit. We as consumers are going to pay the cost whether in term of freedom or monetary. Our civilization is going to decline in either way. Government controlled policy or Pay to Subscribe policy. Arghhhhh...



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by soficrow
 


....In the Internet most things will always be free because there is no way all the data can be controlled or owned...


Yes, there is. "Information" is a trade "commodity," under international law, and subject to the definition and terms of trade established under international "Free Trade" agreements.

FYI - The definition of "information" as a trade commodity covers anything that can be digitized - everything from computer programs to your DNA, to your health, credit and bank records - and under international trade law, whomever digitized the information is the owner.

Also - the whole privacy issue is a red herring - everyone's "personal information" has always been collected, analyzed and sold. The Internet didn't "make it possible" - it just made some of the transactions public.

The re-definition of information as a "commodity" was first legalized under the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement - and then exported to the rest of the world via GATT and the WTO, and imposed globally.

...which is why people are saying, "The US better get Net Neutrality right the first time because the terms will be exported to the rest of the world under 'free trade' agreements."

International agreements (laws) governing copyright and Intellectual Property Rights shore up, expand and solidify multinational corporations' ownership of, and rights to trade, information-as-a-commodity. ...The new ACTA agreement pretty much dots all the i's and crosses all the t's for international trade in information.

Granted, Net Neutrality and ACTA are two different items - but the 'free trade' terms are written and designed to work together, fully usurp nations' sovereignty, and finalize the legal platform for global corporate government.

....You DO qualify your statement and specify "by any one entity" - but - given that information is a commodity, and free trade is free, then conceivably "any one entity" could take control. ...Not that they would need to - the Big Boyz work together.




Thinking some service provider who starts charging money for access to content can control the Internet is wrong.


In that light, I've been wondering about the FCC's recent ruling.

M2Z's Free, Wireless Nationwide Broadband Plan Killed: Thank the FCC

Despite a seemingly stout business plan, and all the financial, social, and educational benefits it would bring, the FCC's just turned down M2Z's application for a coast-to-coast free wireless broadband system.



...The FCC is known to have heard complaints about M2Z's plan from existing wireless carriers. Though M2Z's network would've operated at under 1 mbs peak speeds--meaning it was very slow by today's standards, and probably snail-like by tomorrow's--its free pricing may well have tempted many folks away from spending cash with an established ISP.





If Wikipedia wants to provide all information in the world for free, it will. But if Corporation X wants to provide its information against pay, it will.

This idea is called Freedom. Freedom of Trade and Freedom from Trade.


Again, information is a commodity for trade. You're wrong - the only information wiki can "provide for free" is information that's already in the public domain, which they must be able to prove in a court of law.

Restricting access to information is the most effective way to keep the poor poor, ignorant and powerless - destroy national sovereignty - and secure global power for the filthy rich.


...This site, Above Top Secret, is dedicated to bringing "secrets" into the public eye, and generating discussion and scrutiny of such exposes.

...Without Net Neutrality protections, and given already existent international trade laws defining information-as-commodity, and the ACTA terms coming down the pike -

we soon won't have access to any 'secret' information worth discussing.







[edit on 4-9-2010 by soficrow]

[edit on 4-9-2010 by soficrow]

[edit on 4-9-2010 by soficrow]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

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



I dont need protection against Corporate Interests. I can protect myself just fine.


hahahahaha

No you cant... seriously.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I didnt realize we had curfews in the United States.


Im not saying children shouldnt be protected from crime.

But a company charging money for their services is no crime.

Like in the real world there will always be places to get stuff for free and places where you pay for stuff.

Not interfering with the natural development of the Internet, thats true Neutrality. Telling people how to live and what to do, thats not Neutrality.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Skyfloating]


As for the curfew thing... my point was that we already impose curfew on MILLIONS for the potential actions of a few.

Now I could see if the police simply escorted children back home or simply told them to get off the streets, HOWEVER, being a victim of curfew enforcement myself, having some piss-ant cop give kids attitude for no good reason and taking them to court to be doled out fines and punishment by a condescending judge... it's just insanity. If I'm not doing anything wrong, if I'm simply OUTSIDE at a certain time of day, no matter what age I am I should NOT face any kind of scrutiny from the law, let alone prosecution. THAT is freedom... which is a joke in this country in many ways.

You seem to have a very simplistic idea of how markets work in-practice, and also of Net Neutrality. Markets DO NOT always work out so well... in fact, that's why our large/centralized markets NEED regulation- because they are prone to serious offenses against people and the environment if they're let to do what they want. It's as simple as that.

As for Net Neutrality... NOBODY is saying the government should regulate the natural developments of the internet nor does it even come close to telling people how to live or what to do via the internet, so you're right... that's NOT Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is about internet service providers, these are not CONTENT providers (which means they don't provide us with specific news/games/media/opinion or other specific content) they provide BANDWIDTH and ACCESS to data. Bandwidth is essentially the flow or rate of flow of info/data on the internet. Now WITHOUT net neutrality... these ISP gatekeepers can essentially then BLOCK access to certain content based on what THEY deem is important. The scary part is that this could negatively effect the NATURAL DEVELOPMENT of the internet... it could affect our rights/free speech and free/unfettered access to content. When ISPs can say "Let's give this site more bandwidth because of a, b, and c..." then logically a, b, and c could mean profit, friendliness to the company, and/or a favored political stance. This is essentially like turning the internet into the way modern television functions- where it's NOT free, it's NOT democratic, and a handful of networks with a handful of boss-men get to more/less CONTROL WHAT WE WATCH/HEAR. If this happens to the internet... it'll be terrible, no matter the extent of it.

To sum up- Net Neutrality doesn't hinder freedom, it prevents corporate gate-keepers from hindering freedom themselves. And no you cannot defend against that without serious pressures on these corporate entities which I doubt you can muster at this moment (nor can any of us really). They have levels of power, wealth, control and influence the vast majority of people could never hope to amass outside of a serious revolution.... which I'm not exactly against in all cases.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
You seem to have a very simplistic idea of how markets work in-practice, and also of Net Neutrality. Markets DO NOT always work out so well... in fact, that's why our large/centralized markets NEED regulation- because they are prone to serious offenses against people and the environment if they're let to do what they want. It's as simple as that.


But, where do you draw the line?

I really don't want the government to have a free reign with regulating. Too many special interests/lobbyists/etc.
And a hell of a lot of good the regulators did with the mortgage melt down: the bankers and powerful interests kept it all spiraling towards the drain. Those who could either turned a blind eye or were handcuffed from acting.

I don't know what teh answer is, but I think I'd rather take my chances with the free market than the centralized government market.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 






If Wikipedia wants to provide all information in the world for free, it will. But if Corporation X wants to provide its information against pay, it will.


But that is not what internet neutrality is about.

Corporation X will be able to charge money for their information even under internet neutrality rules. But your internet provider will not be allowed to charge you money for ACCESS to this third-party Corporation Xs service. Do you see the difference?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
You seem to have a very simplistic idea of how markets work in-practice, and also of Net Neutrality. Markets DO NOT always work out so well... in fact, that's why our large/centralized markets NEED regulation- because they are prone to serious offenses against people and the environment if they're let to do what they want. It's as simple as that.


But, where do you draw the line?

I really don't want the government to have a free reign with regulating. Too many special interests/lobbyists/etc.
And a hell of a lot of good the regulators did with the mortgage melt down: the bankers and powerful interests kept it all spiraling towards the drain. Those who could either turned a blind eye or were handcuffed from acting.

I don't know what teh answer is, but I think I'd rather take my chances with the free market than the centralized government market.


Take it from me- I'm an Anarchist, so ultimately, I don't want a centralized government either. HOWEVER, one thing I want LESS than that is our current market except massively de-regulated. We're ALREADY facing serious environmental destruction, loss of workers rights/pay, loss of jobs overseas, and this is all due to FREE REIGN of the market. Sure the government absolutely has its dirty hands in such things as well. However, you state that we don't want regulations BECAUSE of special interests/lobbyists... but the reality is- that's exactly WHY we're so de-regulated is because our government is OWNED by corporate/banking elites. When the housing bubble collapsed, there WERE government watchdogs sitting in lonely offices in lonely agencies who were responsible for blowing the whistle on Wall Street corruption... and they DID blow the whistle! Many times. And ya know what happened? People, both within government and within the market told these regulators to SHUT UP, sit down, and let the free market figure it out. And well, the free market figured it out alright... the free market saw unlimited profit and shot the bubble sky-high without realizing/caring that it was doomed to pop. Now... long after their crucial words should have been heeded, these watchdog government regulators are being listened to. Even Greenspan admitted after the collapse that perhaps the free market DOESN'T work that well... and coming from Greenspan that's like the pope admitting he's an atheist.

DEFINITELY watch this when you get a chance:
www.pbs.org...

And check these out for quicker reads:

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

Here's my take on free markets- they're all good and well but ONLY if we dismantle hierarchies/centralization within MARKETS at the exact same time we dismantle them in governments. If we shut off government but allow massive, centralized, top-down, hierarchical markets/businesses to exist... you're still going to have tyranny, except there won't even be the ILLUSION of Democracy, a public vote, or fair representation... you'll either be screwed or not and more/less have to live with it. That's not a world I want, nor one that MOST people would prosper in. We must avoid plutocracy and escape the one we're in now.

[edited to correct PBS video link - original was just a clip, new link is the full video]

[edit on 4-9-2010 by NoHierarchy]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Just in case you didn't see my edit!

The PBS video link I posted at first was only a short clip. Here is a link to the FULL video...

www.pbs.org...

The interface is a little messy but you should see a video player under/covered by the chapters banner. If you press play it should play from beginning to end. It runs a little over 55 mins.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I really don't want the government to have a free reign with regulating. Too many special interests/lobbyists/etc.


I agree - but if we're drawing a line...


I don't know what teh answer is, but I think I'd rather take my chances with the free market than the centralized government market.


I don't know either, but I DO know that international trade laws are being written and passed to override national laws, allow multinational corporations to supersede national sovereignty, support corporate colonization of virtually everything including the ether - and in short, to establish multinational corporations as having dominion in all domains.

International trade law is the framework for global corporate government, and whatever the USA does regarding Net Neutrality will be adopted into international trade agreements. As the man said, we better get it right the first time.

BTW - If anyone wants to know how the free market and corporate sovereignty plays out, read sci-fi and watch a few movies like Aliens, Total Recall and Robocop.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Originally posted by NoHierarchy
When ISPs can say "Let's give this site more bandwidth because of a, b, and c..." then logically a, b, and c could mean profit, friendliness to the company, and/or a favored political stance. This is essentially like turning the internet into the way modern television functions- where it's NOT free, it's NOT democratic, and a handful of networks with a handful of boss-men get to more/less CONTROL WHAT WE WATCH/HEAR. If this happens to the internet... it'll be terrible, no matter the extent of it.


Not necessarily.

It is always lack of regulation, excessive regulation, or the wrong kind of regulation that has caused us to arrive at this juncture. It is what caused the mortgage meltdown, the collapse of the banking system, and the huge debt that we are continuing to accumulate.

I would rather see the ISP's be able to limit bandwidth to certain customers out of necessity rather than enable the Government to be able to arbitrarily decide who is no longer going to be able to have a voice. It would be no different than the Fairness Doctrine, which most Liberals and Progressives would love to see enacted.

The Left already controls the Lions Share of the MSM. It is only when Conservative talk radio and Fox News appeared on the radar that Liberals started conspiring among themselves to hatch a scheme in order to silence these outposts of Conservative Ideology. Hence the term "Fairness Doctrine".......LOL.

Yet television is free. And although a handful of networks do have the power to influence the masses, they still have to compete with one another in order to make a profit. They are all subject to their Lord and Master, The Free Market. They would no longer be free to peddle their influence if the Government had been allowed to establish this so called "Fairness Doctrine" and dictate to the networks which content and which format they would be allowed to present to their viewing audience.

"Net Neutrality" is just another label for "Fairness Doctrine". The Government wants to be able to control what they define as acceptable political speech.

Free Market Capitalism and Common Sense Regulation, like Laws that prevent Monopolies and Price Fixing will ensure the evolution of the Internet as we know it today. And it will ensure the survival of Free Speech and "True Fairness and Neutrality".

Edited to add......

And on a side note.....If you think that a certain ISP is going to be in a position to make extra profits by sales of certain premium services, you can always buy stock in their Corporation.......America is still a candy store, get it while it's still sweet.

Get with the program, and quit relying on Government to make the right decisions. And don't expect them to make your every whim and desire from the cradle to the grave come true. What was it that President Kennedy said?.....Oh ya, I remember. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

[edit on 4-9-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join