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.
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.
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.
...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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
You can have the same kinds of authoritarian controls via corporate interests and THAT is what Net Neutrality PROTECTS AGAINST.
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...
Thinking some service provider who starts charging money for access to content can control the Internet is wrong.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.