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.
ScientiaFortisDefendit
This will absolutely kill small businesses that depend on web traffic for customer acquisition. Do you think that is one of the goals? I do. This about two things: Control of the internet and consolidation of profits.
Imagine what happens when you want to sell the awesome product you designed, that you make in your little factory by the American workers you hired. You won't be able to afford outbound access through the internet, so you'll be forced to sell through Amazon and pay Amazon their premiums.
We need to stop this Communism creep.
edit on 14-1-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)
mirageofdeceit
Just avoid the major ISPs and I guess you avoid this problem.
Even small ISPs will be trying to stay in business, and so for them, offering a deliberately limited service would just be suicide.
The other question is would this just affect users in the US, or would ALL traffic be limited?
Aazadan
fractal2
reply to post by Aazadan
In my area (rural US) there is one choice for high-speed internet. When I lived in the city, I had two or three choices. Satellite internet is available almost everywhere but it is low-speed, like a fast dial-up connection. I hope you all enjoyed the peak years of US internet structure.
Even three choices doesn't give you a whole lot of options. It's not like back in the days of 56k (which depending on broadband options with net neutrality might become a thing again... maybe I can break out my old ISDN modem) where literally anyone could set up an ISP. Part of me is morbidly curious to see what happens, if using TOR the packets will be encrypted so the ISP can't single something out. But this goes back to what I said before, what if the ISP's start blocking encrypted packets? The NSA certainly wants them to do that. We could have a really screwed up internet really soon.
.............
By 2000, the U.S. had fewer than five million consumer "broadband" links, averaging 500 kilobits per second. Over the past two years, the reverse has been true. As the FCC has relaxed or eliminated regulations, broadband investment and download speeds have surged -- we now enjoy almost 50 million broadband links, averaging some three megabits per second. Internet video succeeded in the form of YouTube. But that "explosion of innovation" at the "applications and content layer" was not feasible without tens of billions of dollars of optics, chips and disks deployed around the world. YouTube at the edge cannot happen without bandwidth in the core.
Messrs. Lessig, Dingell and Conyers, and Google, now want to repeat all the investment-killing mistakes of the late 1990s, in the form of new legislation and FCC regulation to ensure "net neutrality." This ignores the experience of the recent past -- and worse, the needs of the future.
...............
Wall Street will finance new telco and cable fiber optic projects, but only with some reasonable hope of a profit. And that is what net neutrality could squelch. Google, for example, has guaranteed $900 million in advertising revenue to MySpace and paid Dell $1 billion to install Google search boxes on its computers; YouTube partnered with Verizon Wireless; MySpace signed its own content deal with Cingular. But these kinds of preferential partnerships, where content and conduit are integrated to varying degrees -- and which are ubiquitous in almost every industry -- could be outlawed under net neutrality.
Ironically, the condition that net neutrality seeks to ban -- discrimination or favoritism of content on the Internet -- is only necessary in narrowband networks. When resources are scarce, the highest bidder can exclude the others. But with real broadband networks, capacity is abundant and discrimination unnecessary. Net neutrality's rules, price controls and litigation would prevent broadband networks from being built, limit the amount of available bandwidth and thus encourage the zero-sum discrimination supposedly deplored.
.............
ScientiaFortisDefendit
This will absolutely kill small businesses that depend on web traffic for customer acquisition. Do you think that is one of the goals? I do. This about two things: Control of the internet and consolidation of profits.
Imagine what happens when you want to sell the awesome product you designed, that you make in your little factory by the American workers you hired. You won't be able to afford outbound access through the internet, so you'll be forced to sell through Amazon and pay Amazon their premiums.
We need to stop this Communism creep.
edit on 14-1-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)