Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I was just talking to someone about how the internet is largely unregulated and in my opinion its because of our first amendment rights. Then i read this today...

Wired


Net neutrality is a dead man walking. The execution date isn’t set, but it could be days, or months (at best). And since net neutrality is the principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users, websites, or apps differently — say, by letting some work better than others over their pipes — the dead man walking isn’t some abstract or far-removed principle just for wonks: It affects the internet as we all know it.

Once upon a time, companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others declared a war on the internet’s foundational principle: that its networks should be “neutral” and users don’t need anyone’s permission to invent, create, communicate, broadcast, or share online. The neutral and level playing field provided by permissionless innovation has empowered all of us with the freedom to express ourselves and innovate online without having to seek the permission of a remote telecom executive.

But today, that freedom won’t survive much longer if a federal court — the second most powerful court in the nation behind the Supreme Court, the DC Circuit — is set to strike down the nation’s net neutrality law, a rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010. Some will claim the new solution “splits the baby” in a way that somehow doesn’t kill net neutrality and so we should be grateful. But make no mistake: Despite eight years of public and political activism by multitudes fighting for freedom on the internet, a court decision may soon take it away.


Ok, so we cant add content for free anymore? So ATS is going to have to pay ATnT or someone, whoever to host their content? Does ATS have that type of revenue?



The CEO of AT&T told an interviewer back in 2005 that he wanted to introduce a new business model to the internet: charging companies like Google and Yahoo! to reliably reach internet users on the AT&T network. Keep in mind that users already pay to access the internet and that Google and Yahoo! already pay other telecom companies — often called backbone providers — to connect to these internet users. [Disclosure: I have done legal work for several companies supporting network neutrality, including Google.]


Ugh..... why are they trying to kill the economy? Is this a way to stifle the free flow of information?



the FCC would be unable to stop cable and phone companies from taxing innovators or providing worse service to some sites and better service to others. Since we know internet users tend to quit using a website or application if it loads even just a few seconds slower than a competitor’s version, this no-blocking rule would essentially have enabled the phone and cable companies to discriminate by picking website/app/platform winners and losers. (Congress would merely enact the loophole. Think of it as a safe harbor for discriminating online.)


WOW. This is censorship at its best, howd that get through congress? Luckily though....



Luckily, consumer groups, technology companies, political leaders, and American citizens saw through the nonsense and rallied around a principle to preserve the internet’s openness. They advocated for one simple, necessary rule — a nondiscrimination principle that became known as “network neutrality”.


I still dont get how that got through congress...



Wait, it gets even worse. Pricing isn’t even a necessary forcing factor. Once the court voids the nondiscrimination rule, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reason. Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance. Whatever. Or, no reason at all.


This is bad... this is all bad news..... I hope they see the light and continue to provide the free flow of information so i can continue to educate myself without having to go 120k into debt. So if congress moves against net neutrality how does that reflect in court against how congress feels about the first amendment? Should that even be considered when passing and turning down laws like this?

What do you think ATS?
edit on 4-11-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-11-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



+2 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Net neutrality, is an ideal akin to Freedom of speech, equal to Equal rights.

With out it, it is saying government and corporations are free to censor speech, it allows for discrimination.

When you allow someone to diminish anothers thoughts and opinions, to bar it from reaching the public, it is the Antithesis of everything the US is supposed to stand for.

The death of Net neutrality means at any point, those with power, can dictate via bandwidth restrictions what gets said, what thoughts are allowed to flow in the public domain.

People, if it dies, we might as well have started burning books, because that is the type of act this mindset allows.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


I am a little undecided and here is where i am caught up, and dont get me wrong i strongly believe in net neutrality.

Should the government have the power to regulate the private practices of these business in this fashion?

What road are we taking here?

Add - I would almost like to see these corporations take a stand themselves and create a commerce pact based on ethical business practices and the american public to tell the government to step back.

Perfect world.
edit on 4-11-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


What does the Internet have to do with my right to keep and bear arms? Which is the second amendment.?.?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

onequestion
reply to post by benrl
 


I am a little undecided and here is where i am caught up, and dont get me wrong i strongly believe in net neutrality.

Should the government have the power to regulate the private practices of these business in this fashion?

What road are we taking here?


Would we allow corporations to limit the flow of traffic to their competitors by paying enough?

Would we allow a retail store to make all green lights going to them, while allowing all red lights on the road to their competitor?

Make no mistake, that is exactly what Net neutrality is trying to prevent, why would we allow something on the net that would never fly in real life?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JHumm
 


I meant first amendment.

Fixing now.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 





Would we allow corporations to limit the flow of traffic to their competitors by paying enough?

Would we allow a retail store to make all green lights going to them, while allowing all red lights on the road to their competitor?

Make no mistake, that is exactly what Net neutrality is trying to prevent, why would we allow something on the net that would never fly in real life?


Im not sure about that first question.

The lights are controled by the government but the stores are not.

I am 100% for net neutrality but im against big government and government regulation. What happens to bitcoin when the government gets its hands on it?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

onequestion
reply to post by benrl
 


I am a little undecided and here is where i am caught up, and dont get me wrong i strongly believe in net neutrality.

Should the government have the power to regulate the private practices of these business in this fashion?

What road are we taking here?

Add - I would almost like to see these corporations take a stand themselves and create a commerce pact based on ethical business practices and the american public to tell the government to step back.

Perfect world.
edit on 4-11-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)


They do it every day, Why do you think we can't have child labor, or 100 hour work weeks, overtime, meal and break periods.

We tell them they can't not employ someone because of race, creed, disability.

Im as libertarian as the next ATSer, but im not stupid, I know that history shows unregulated business is the fast route to human rights violations.

SO yeah, theirs some issues that the government should demand a certain standards companies have to adhere to.

Freedom of speech on public telecom is one of those.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


I agree 100%.

I still wish that we had more of an ethical business mind culturally so that the government didnt have to regulate this. Once again however that is in a perfect world, i just wish we could get there.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Thats what I figured, I was just poking a little fun.
If our government and every other government would just mind their own business like the people do then we would all be better off.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


I didnt know about this but who can keep up, SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, ACTA?

Verizon is a ridiculous company, they are that one corporation that runs everything in the dystopian future movies.

Even if they win it will only be temporary. People wont go for it for long they will find ways around it. Building their own networks, or some other thing I'm not smart enough to think of right now. People are innovative.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Don't fall in to the "Free Markets" should be free trap. It may seem communistic or socialistic of me to say this, but the greater an entity's influence over a wider section of the population the more regulation they require. In essence, with greater power should come lesser liberty.

The oligarchs behind the largest, most corrupt corporations in the world (including telecom, banking, and agribusiness to name the biggest offenders) have spent billions convincing otherwise rational conservatives that limiting the powers of a conglomerate which controls 42% of electronic communications nationwide so that it may not unfairly anoint itself as a god-like entity with sway over the very transfer of ideas is somehow identical to government telling a mom and pop electronics store that they MUST carry at least 20 different brands of cell phones at their store.

Telling the Mom and Pop Shop what to do is draconian nonsense where the government steps in for no reason beyond asserting its own irrational power.

Telling AT&T that it needs to provide equal service to its customers keeping the playing field "fair." Something as vital as internet access in this day and age should probably be a public utility. Being a private and profitable venture that needs to follow some extra rules seems a fair compromise to me.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt
 





Telling the Mom and Pop Shop what to do is draconian nonsense where the government steps in for no reason beyond asserting its own irrational power.


Great points. I completely agree with you and thanks for helping me clarify my own position.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
on the subject of the 1st amendment :

are you free to demand that " the Washington post " publish any content you wish ?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   

ignorant_ape
on the subject of the 1st amendment :

are you free to demand that " the Washington post " publish any content you wish ?


No but your free to demand equal access to the washington post.

If someone would to come out and say that NO we are only allowing ten issues of the post, and NO MORE.

You might have a problem with that...



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   

ignorant_ape
on the subject of the 1st amendment :

are you free to demand that " the Washington post " publish any content you wish ?


The Washington Post isn't an ISP. ISP are just a delivery service they aren't any different than many other products that can't discriminate against customers. If they were the publishers of all the content on the internet they would be sued for every single illegal activity that occurs. Att Verizon Comcast they are just roadways.

It would be more like if the Post Office charged you $5 to deliver the Washington Post and $2 to deliver you The New York Times instead of charging everyone the same rates for the same things. Or the Post Office could say Hallmark cards are $0 to send and include 3day delivery but all others cost $10 and will take up to 2weeks. They could also say you can purchase this service which allows you to send cards, letters, and 1lb packages for $10 if you want to send books,magazines, and 2lb boxes you can purchase this service for $10.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


globally speaking, net neutrality never really existed. some countries are still running speeds no greater than 1mbps because of their local telecoms monopolizing internet access.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tomoe723
 


Yeah but that is the problem for those individual countries to solve for themselves. In the same way that we don't make the laws for another country since that is not our area of responsibility. However, in our own individual countries where we elect representatives to "Work for Us", those reps/gov bodies are supposed to be doing what is in our interest and not the Comm Giant Corps. That is of course how it is supposed to be but it is NOT how things are as we all know.

We are fed the fairy tale about how your vote counts and the power of the people but lets face it, these political sock puppets that are running things aren't being financed by us anymore. They are being financed by Huge Corporate Lobbies and that is who they ultimately will be in service to at the end of the day.

Our only hope if in fact neutrality is killed would be to literally construct our own roads on which to travel. There is some effort already doing this but it's not anywhere near what it needs to be and still piggy-backs off the major comm lines for it's backbone anyway.

Or to somehow hijack or tunnel through their roads unnoticed and unregulated, but I don't think that would be possible.
Certainly not on a large scale.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Has anyone else noticed something I often notice about the internet? That when I seem to be on the trail of something in my life, certain sites and things pop up that either mislead you or help you out, but when things cool down, can't be found again? Often times as random advertisements, related posts, or like in FB, suggested pages and posts that just kinda serendipitously happen when other things are going on?

Like one time, it was like it was trolling me. I was looking for something specific and I kept finding things that SHOULD have been the right place and had the right title, but when I went into the page at that time it led me somewhere else instead, or when I felt I needed to see something online, finding something that I really needed to help me at the time in a random place?

Another time, I had people posting a bunch of gibberish on my site. Codes and stuff, but they got deleted.

Just weird that it happens. I don't know if other people have it happen to them too.

I've also had times when I have asked several people to use their phones when I really needed it, but each one, when I dialed the right number, it went somewhere else. I did double-check. It happens alot to me, especially in a time of need.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mOjOm
 


i guess it sucks to be living in third world countries then, where they charge you exorbitant prices for crappy outdated services... and to think they advertise those crappy outdated services as new and up-to-date...





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join