Topic: Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means - page 4. (Read 7088 times)
^^^ Thanks for posting that. That is exactly what I have been saying about it all along. This net neutrality is not and never has been about protecting the average user's rights. It is simply about the government gaining control so that it can monitor and censor (and prosecute) what we say and do on what used to be a free internet.
There was an editorial in the WSJ today that said what obama is proposing would essentially cause ISPs to become utilities and would stifle competition.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/12/obama-wants-to-now-fully-regulate-the-internet-as-a-public-utility/
Quote from: Armstrong
Believe it or not, Obama wants to fully regulate the internet – EVERYTHING right down to content!. Yes you read it correctly. He wants to create the effective Department of the Internet under the FCC.
...
Good sources state clearly that this will be a very dangerous step toward both taxation and censorship. The FCC function is to REGULATE radio and TV. They have to apply to the FCC for licenses. Why anyone would imagine that the FCC will regulate with no attached costs is beyond belief. Obama is one nasty communist and he has supported the NSA 150%.
...
The ONLY way for the FCC can ensure traffic is “neutral” is to officially monitor the flow of traffic. That means they will have to be monitoring stations everywhere. This is a back-door to the NSA for starters. ALL emails will have to flow through the government fingers. Send money to someone by Western Union online and they will hand that info to the IRS. If the receiver did not declare it, here they come. The government will have 100% access to absolutely everything from your emails and photos to your credit cards and bank accounts.
This is just the beginning. The FCC will monitor CONTENT as well to ensure neutrality. What they do on radio and TV will be applied to the internet. The Supreme Court struck down a law and created the right to privacy when Connecticut saw fit to outlaw condoms for married people. The Supreme Court realized how does one enforce such a regulation without entering the bedroom to inspect before insertion that you are complying with the law. (GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT, 381 US 479 (1965)). How will the FCC regulate without inspecting what you write? Under the pretense of protecting “neutrality” they will be able to shut down political speech.
The public at large are totally ignorant of how law is made. It is not crafted by Congress but judges and prosecutors after agencies write it not Congress. Agencies write their own laws. Insider trading etc. are SEC regulations. But then a clause states it is a crime to violate a SEC regulation. Therefore, this is a dictatorial power that is NOT enacted by Congress. Agencies simply write regulations that become crimes.
...
However, sites outside the USA will be beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC. So how will they “monitor” such foreign sites to ensure neutrality? They will block sites from access. This is the very same policy imposed in both China and Russia. Say goodbye to the freedom of access and freedom of speech. Obama is en route to destroy the internet. Censorship is what they are worried about with the Sovereign Debt Crisis. They KNOW what is coming. This is a power-play to seize control of the internet to protect their ass – not yours!
...
This means under FCC Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, Obama unilaterally wants to regulate what you now say. He will not allow a public vote any more than the EU will allow free elections on the Euro. Obama is acting simply as an unconstitutional dictator. Anyone publishing on the internet would need a license and if they do not approve what you write – goodbye. It may be jail time for walking on someone’s grass or other law. Perhaps throwing fish overboard - that’s good for 20 years in prison.
Forget free speech. Obama naturally claims he wants “to protect net neutrality.” That is the code word for regulating free speech just like we have free speech in the media. Oh lets see, I do not believe what you wrote was neutral or fair – that’s a fine and imprisonment. Every law has fine and imprisonment as a penalty. You will be sitting in a cell with a serial killer. He will ask you “what’s u in for”, and you will say publicly saying taxes are not fair. Politicians always hide their real motives. Obama was looking to disarm America to cut off the possibility of revolution so he pretends gun control is for children. Hitler used the same tactics. Politicians always disguise their real motives. It has historically always been them against us.
...
Good sources state clearly that this will be a very dangerous step toward both taxation and censorship. The FCC function is to REGULATE radio and TV. They have to apply to the FCC for licenses. Why anyone would imagine that the FCC will regulate with no attached costs is beyond belief. Obama is one nasty communist and he has supported the NSA 150%.
...
The ONLY way for the FCC can ensure traffic is “neutral” is to officially monitor the flow of traffic. That means they will have to be monitoring stations everywhere. This is a back-door to the NSA for starters. ALL emails will have to flow through the government fingers. Send money to someone by Western Union online and they will hand that info to the IRS. If the receiver did not declare it, here they come. The government will have 100% access to absolutely everything from your emails and photos to your credit cards and bank accounts.
This is just the beginning. The FCC will monitor CONTENT as well to ensure neutrality. What they do on radio and TV will be applied to the internet. The Supreme Court struck down a law and created the right to privacy when Connecticut saw fit to outlaw condoms for married people. The Supreme Court realized how does one enforce such a regulation without entering the bedroom to inspect before insertion that you are complying with the law. (GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT, 381 US 479 (1965)). How will the FCC regulate without inspecting what you write? Under the pretense of protecting “neutrality” they will be able to shut down political speech.
The public at large are totally ignorant of how law is made. It is not crafted by Congress but judges and prosecutors after agencies write it not Congress. Agencies write their own laws. Insider trading etc. are SEC regulations. But then a clause states it is a crime to violate a SEC regulation. Therefore, this is a dictatorial power that is NOT enacted by Congress. Agencies simply write regulations that become crimes.
...
However, sites outside the USA will be beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC. So how will they “monitor” such foreign sites to ensure neutrality? They will block sites from access. This is the very same policy imposed in both China and Russia. Say goodbye to the freedom of access and freedom of speech. Obama is en route to destroy the internet. Censorship is what they are worried about with the Sovereign Debt Crisis. They KNOW what is coming. This is a power-play to seize control of the internet to protect their ass – not yours!
...
This means under FCC Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, Obama unilaterally wants to regulate what you now say. He will not allow a public vote any more than the EU will allow free elections on the Euro. Obama is acting simply as an unconstitutional dictator. Anyone publishing on the internet would need a license and if they do not approve what you write – goodbye. It may be jail time for walking on someone’s grass or other law. Perhaps throwing fish overboard - that’s good for 20 years in prison.
Forget free speech. Obama naturally claims he wants “to protect net neutrality.” That is the code word for regulating free speech just like we have free speech in the media. Oh lets see, I do not believe what you wrote was neutral or fair – that’s a fine and imprisonment. Every law has fine and imprisonment as a penalty. You will be sitting in a cell with a serial killer. He will ask you “what’s u in for”, and you will say publicly saying taxes are not fair. Politicians always hide their real motives. Obama was looking to disarm America to cut off the possibility of revolution so he pretends gun control is for children. Hitler used the same tactics. Politicians always disguise their real motives. It has historically always been them against us.
There was an editorial in the WSJ today that said what obama is proposing would essentially cause ISPs to become utilities and would stifle competition.
I think a good solution would be for ISPs to abandon the concept of essentially unlimited amounts of data while limiting the download/upload speeds to what the consumers pay for. I think they should move to a model when consumers pay for the total speed as well as the amount of data transmitted; a similar way that cell phone customers pay for their data plans
I think a good solution would be for ISPs to abandon the concept of essentially unlimited amounts of data while limiting the download/upload speeds to what the consumers pay for. I think they should move to a model when consumers pay for the total speed as well as the amount of data transmitted; a similar way that cell phone customers pay for their data plans
The solution as always will not be government regulation (which always makes it worse), rather competition via improved technology that enables finer grained actions. Part of the problem is the regulatory capture that already exists to prevent competition juxtaposed against capital requirements due to current granularity of technological solutions.
Mesh-nets are one potential technological solution on the horizon. Also I've heard about solar powered planes or balloons beaming service at lower capital costs than satellites.
Solar balloons are a REALLY cool idea, and completely compatible with both centralized WISPs and the theoretical mesh-WISP talked about here. Google is actually experimenting with this, but wants to do things like include active propulsion, which seems a bit crazy to me. Instead, I'd rather want to tether the balloons to the ground and only use the solar to power the amp/router (and the relatively little LiPo battery). The big issue a lot of rural WISPs have is with penetration through trees and hills - and this, of course, also hampers cell coverage (so there's a market with solar balloons here, too). Balloons are fantastically cheaper than giant radio towers and allow many more trees and hills to be bypassed so they aren't impeding signal -- radio towers become more expensive the higher you build, generally, so cell companies generally skimp here, giving the unfortunate residents shit service (actually, I ended up plopping down >$100 on a special amplifier for cell signals just so my connection wasn't frequently dropping with ~10kb/s speeds).Mesh-nets are one potential technological solution on the horizon. Also I've heard about solar powered planes or balloons beaming service at lower capital costs than satellites.
I mean - you're not going to be looking at 50+mbps speeds like with a land-line venture, but like freedom's articles mention - that option's bloody expensive and particularly difficult unless there's a fast connection nearby you can run into town (while you can use wireless ptp for tens, possibly soon - hundreds, of miles to get into a fast connection a couple towns over without running underground lines using solar balloons or even conventional towers). -But I think we'll want to wait for 11ah, still. It's what I'm waiting for, anyway. -And if there are home routers coming out which support simultaneous 2.4GHz g/n and 900MHz ah broadcasting, shit's going to get really, really cheap to implement.
The solution as always will not be government regulation (which always makes it worse), rather competition via improved technology that enables finer grained actions. Part of the problem is the regulatory capture that already exists to prevent competition juxtaposed against capital requirements due to current granularity of technological solutions.
Mesh-nets are one potential technological solution on the horizon. Also I've heard about solar powered planes or balloons beaming service at lower capital costs than satellites.
Mesh-nets are one potential technological solution on the horizon. Also I've heard about solar powered planes or balloons beaming service at lower capital costs than satellites.
Extending on Kluges point Net Neutrality might make all packets equal and reduce the incentive to improve instead corporations will throttle more and filter the types of data to reduce bandwidth consumption and maximize bottom lines one can also see it as a corporate agenda to maximize profits funded by big cable companies to build a monopoly over one thing we all value greatly the internet.
There have been some cases of local municipalities fed up with the internet service they were provided creating their own lines to the angst of Comcast and similar companies.
There is still an incentive to improve and it doesn't always have to be based on the bottom line of some big companies to do so.
Simply put we need more Longmounts who are willing to do the work on their own and not more corporate controls and restrictions on these type of free market innovations on the internet. If net neutrality was removed corporations would just funnel more money into killing any independent projects like they are already doing, or just update a system when enough people complain and think about making their own piecemeal instead of improving the whole communications network.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/16/internet-sharing-how-to-get-revenge-on-the-cable-company/
Earlier this spring, reports started coming in from some nearby friends that their internet access prices had been jacked way up. It seems that the local internet near-monopoly (Comcast) had just arbitrarily decided to increase their prices by $10 per month. Offended by this attack on their frugality, these friends naturally turned to Mr. Money Mustache for advice.
Normally, I’d just advise them to use the magic of the free market and vote with their feet. Call Comcast, cancel the internet service while explaining it is because of the price increase, and select one of several other options we have here in my town (including a city-wide wi-fi network).
But in this case, hearing of this the 20% price increase pushed me over the edge. You see, I’ve had a bone to pick with Comcast ever since 2009, when they secretly funded a voter disinformation program called “No Blank Check Longmont”. It was designed to get the citizens of this city to vote against allowing our town council to use the fiber-optic network that the people paid for and own, to offer services for the benefit of the people.
The cable company was afraid of having to compete with a potentially low-cost internet access program from the city, but since that wouldn’t make a very good sales pitch, they did it by lying instead: saying that the city would be spending taxpayer money on the project. It was completely false, and the town council tried their best to fight the lies with editorials in the town newspaper. But in the end, Comcast just out-spent the council by a huge margin and stupidity won the day. In 2011, the fiber optic vote came back on the ballot, and Comcast funded yet another disinformation campaign with the catchy name “Look before we Leap“. Again, they pretended to be “a group of concerned citizens” despite the fact that their entire $300,000 budget came from the cable companies. Luckily, there were enough informed voters the second time around to kick its ass. The citizens got their fiber optic network back, and Comcast gained a few new lifetime enemies, including me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/06/big-cable-helped-defeat-seattles-mayor-mcginn-but-they-couldnt-stop-this-colorado-project/
The same was done in Canada in Olds Alberta
Fed up with their crap lines they built their own to the surprise of the incumbents.
Rural internet typically slow, expensive
The Olds project is a rarity. Most rural communities across Canada have to make do with internet service — often delivered by dial-up or satellite — that is slow or expensive, or both.
Not too long ago, Olds was in that boat. Some businesses were even threatening to leave town because of the challenges posed by the sluggish internet.
"We had engineering companies here who were sending memory chips by courier because there wasn't enough bandwidth to deal with their stuff," recalls Joe Gustafson, who spearheaded the project to bring a fibre network to Olds.
There were some speed bumps along the way. The town had trouble finding skilled labour to install the fibre cables between people's property lines and their homes, putting the project behind schedule.
But eventually installation progressed and the Olds Institute began inviting large, commercial internet providers to offer their services via the new network. All of them refused to use a network they had not installed themselves, Gustafson said.
The community was undeterred. It came up with a new plan.
"We said, 'Well I guess if we're going to do this, we have to do our own services,'" Gustafson recalled.
The Olds Institute spent $3.5 million to buy the necessary electronic equipment to run internet and other services on the network and to build a central office to house it all. Last July, it launched O-Net.
The community-owned service offers not just internet, but also phone and IPTV services — TV signals carried on the network that includes dozens of SD and HD channels, and movies on demand that can be paused and later resumed.
All told, the project will probably have cost $13 million to $14 million when it's complete, Gustafson said.
"It's a very gutsy thing on behalf of council here in Olds to approve something like that," he added.
Net neutrality is about more than the bottom line but fast efficient communications, that can be built without the need of cable companies.
There have been some cases of local municipalities fed up with the internet service they were provided creating their own lines to the angst of Comcast and similar companies.
There is still an incentive to improve and it doesn't always have to be based on the bottom line of some big companies to do so.
Simply put we need more Longmounts who are willing to do the work on their own and not more corporate controls and restrictions on these type of free market innovations on the internet. If net neutrality was removed corporations would just funnel more money into killing any independent projects like they are already doing, or just update a system when enough people complain and think about making their own piecemeal instead of improving the whole communications network.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/16/internet-sharing-how-to-get-revenge-on-the-cable-company/
Earlier this spring, reports started coming in from some nearby friends that their internet access prices had been jacked way up. It seems that the local internet near-monopoly (Comcast) had just arbitrarily decided to increase their prices by $10 per month. Offended by this attack on their frugality, these friends naturally turned to Mr. Money Mustache for advice.
Normally, I’d just advise them to use the magic of the free market and vote with their feet. Call Comcast, cancel the internet service while explaining it is because of the price increase, and select one of several other options we have here in my town (including a city-wide wi-fi network).
But in this case, hearing of this the 20% price increase pushed me over the edge. You see, I’ve had a bone to pick with Comcast ever since 2009, when they secretly funded a voter disinformation program called “No Blank Check Longmont”. It was designed to get the citizens of this city to vote against allowing our town council to use the fiber-optic network that the people paid for and own, to offer services for the benefit of the people.
The cable company was afraid of having to compete with a potentially low-cost internet access program from the city, but since that wouldn’t make a very good sales pitch, they did it by lying instead: saying that the city would be spending taxpayer money on the project. It was completely false, and the town council tried their best to fight the lies with editorials in the town newspaper. But in the end, Comcast just out-spent the council by a huge margin and stupidity won the day. In 2011, the fiber optic vote came back on the ballot, and Comcast funded yet another disinformation campaign with the catchy name “Look before we Leap“. Again, they pretended to be “a group of concerned citizens” despite the fact that their entire $300,000 budget came from the cable companies. Luckily, there were enough informed voters the second time around to kick its ass. The citizens got their fiber optic network back, and Comcast gained a few new lifetime enemies, including me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/06/big-cable-helped-defeat-seattles-mayor-mcginn-but-they-couldnt-stop-this-colorado-project/
The same was done in Canada in Olds Alberta
Fed up with their crap lines they built their own to the surprise of the incumbents.
Rural internet typically slow, expensive
The Olds project is a rarity. Most rural communities across Canada have to make do with internet service — often delivered by dial-up or satellite — that is slow or expensive, or both.
Not too long ago, Olds was in that boat. Some businesses were even threatening to leave town because of the challenges posed by the sluggish internet.
"We had engineering companies here who were sending memory chips by courier because there wasn't enough bandwidth to deal with their stuff," recalls Joe Gustafson, who spearheaded the project to bring a fibre network to Olds.
There were some speed bumps along the way. The town had trouble finding skilled labour to install the fibre cables between people's property lines and their homes, putting the project behind schedule.
But eventually installation progressed and the Olds Institute began inviting large, commercial internet providers to offer their services via the new network. All of them refused to use a network they had not installed themselves, Gustafson said.
The community was undeterred. It came up with a new plan.
"We said, 'Well I guess if we're going to do this, we have to do our own services,'" Gustafson recalled.
The Olds Institute spent $3.5 million to buy the necessary electronic equipment to run internet and other services on the network and to build a central office to house it all. Last July, it launched O-Net.
The community-owned service offers not just internet, but also phone and IPTV services — TV signals carried on the network that includes dozens of SD and HD channels, and movies on demand that can be paused and later resumed.
All told, the project will probably have cost $13 million to $14 million when it's complete, Gustafson said.
"It's a very gutsy thing on behalf of council here in Olds to approve something like that," he added.
Net neutrality is about more than the bottom line but fast efficient communications, that can be built without the need of cable companies.
Net Neutrality means paying users subsidize free loaders with government enforcement under the idealistic guise (lie) of "making all packets free(dom) or equal". Since everyone then is motivated to be a free loader, then the internet goes bankrupt and is backstopped by government subsidies. This is just socialism (not trusting the fine grained annealing of the free market), handing control to the largest multi-nationals which have regulatory capture of the government, and thus abject failure end game.
It is not surprising to me that most people these days fall for this bullshit. People are so socialist and collectivist minded these days. They believe the problem is the solution, i.e. the problem of multinational regulatory capture of the government is solved by more government regulation. Sigh.
Any way, I've been thinking about how we can get improved IP obfuscation anonymity on the low-latency internet without relying solely on low-latency Chaum mix-nets such as I2P and Tor. The solution can also work around Net Neutrality socialism.
Once we have a micro-payments decentralized crypto-currency (Bitcoin doesn't have the correct design), we can design turnkey software so that any one can turn their home WiFi router into a money making ISP. Drive-by clients can anonymously pay per packet to connect over the WiFi.
As these WiFi nodes become ubiquitous (due to their independent setup and profitability), they can begin to connect to each other in a mesh topology network, thus by passing (routing around) the internet backbone in case where the government has put in a packet filter.
Fuck the socialism! We hackers are in the process of radically changing this world. Stay tuned...
I think Net Neutrality is a necessary evil in a terrible, centralized market created by government. While the idea of a mesh-net is great for dense areas, I still don't even have a broadband ISP option. There's not even DSL here and current 2.4GHz routers aren't going to bring it. I bought a fancy Ubiquiti antenna and router to see how far it can penetrate, and except PtP with LoS, it's only a marginal improvement over a $20 wireless Linksys router - because it's using the 2.4GHz bands. I'd be overjoyed to see a Meshernet, but I doubt that's going to happen for me within the next couple of years, whereas net neutrality can protect me from ISP blacklisting or even (God forbid) whitelisting, as well as fast lanes (and I see no reason to trust ISPs are going to throttle based on consumption vs. arbitrary "we don't like p2p tech like BitTorrent or Bitcoin") - because many ISPs ALREADY throttle based on consumption, right? When they don't throttle, they might simply cancel a user's contract based on vague "excessive use" policies, even though they've promised they can deliver an unlimited volume of data at, say 5mbps up, because they've over-sold their service. -And then we have the problem of "up to 5mbps" because they're not just over-selling, but over-selling to an extent where the advertised speed rate is outright misleading and, I'd argue, fraudulent in some cases (esp. with regional DSL services).It is not surprising to me that most people these days fall for this bullshit. People are so socialist and collectivist minded these days. They believe the problem is the solution, i.e. the problem of multinational regulatory capture of the government is solved by more government regulation. Sigh.
Any way, I've been thinking about how we can get improved IP obfuscation anonymity on the low-latency internet without relying solely on low-latency Chaum mix-nets such as I2P and Tor. The solution can also work around Net Neutrality socialism.
Once we have a micro-payments decentralized crypto-currency (Bitcoin doesn't have the correct design), we can design turnkey software so that any one can turn their home WiFi router into a money making ISP. Drive-by clients can anonymously pay per packet to connect over the WiFi.
As these WiFi nodes become ubiquitous (due to their independent setup and profitability), they can begin to connect to each other in a mesh topology network, thus by passing (routing around) the internet backbone in case where the government has put in a packet filter.
Fuck the socialism! We hackers are in the process of radically changing this world. Stay tuned...
What I think'll really open this meshnet (meshernet?) market up is going to be 802.11ah. Idunno if you've looked into it, but what it's promising is going to have a massive impact on WISPs (whether dedicated-business WISPs or these theoretical new home mesh-WISPs). If 11ah can be pushed as the standard almost exclusively for this new kind of mesh-net (to help minimize interference from other uses), I think this could absolutely take off. Everything about it looks exactly right for a mesh-net. Up to 20mbps on high-penetration 900MHz bands, up to 8000 connections. If we start seeing home routers operating on both 2.4GHz g/n + this new 900MHz 11ah standard, I'm confident we'll be entering the new era where TWC can take over as many ISPs as it likes without seriously threatening the integrity of the Internet.
for each country should no restrictions internet speed, because the speed of the connection is very important, especially when such networks are used together that will affect the speed of the internet, when the network and internet connection is fast and stable course much we can do in the world the Internet, we can mine bitcoin quickly and easily ... 
Net Neutrality means paying users subsidize free loaders with government enforcement under the idealistic guise (lie) of "making all packets free(dom) or equal". Since everyone then is motivated to be a free loader, then the internet goes bankrupt and is backstopped by government subsidies. This is just socialism (not trusting the fine grained annealing of the free market), handing control to the largest multi-nationals which have regulatory capture of the government, and thus abject failure end game.
It is not surprising to me that most people these days fall for this bullshit. People are so socialist and collectivist minded these days. They believe the problem is the solution, i.e. the problem of multinational regulatory capture of the government is solved by more government regulation. Sigh.
Any way, I've been thinking about how we can get improved IP obfuscation anonymity on the low-latency internet without relying solely on low-latency Chaum mix-nets such as I2P and Tor. The solution can also work around Net Neutrality socialism.
Once we have a micro-payments decentralized crypto-currency (Bitcoin doesn't have the correct design), we can design turnkey software so that any one can turn their home WiFi router into a money making ISP. Drive-by clients can anonymously pay per packet to connect over the WiFi.
As these WiFi nodes become ubiquitous (due to their independent setup and profitability), they can begin to connect to each other in a mesh topology network, thus by passing (routing around) the internet backbone in case where the government has put in a packet filter.
Fuck the socialism! We hackers are in the process of radically changing this world. Stay tuned...
It is not surprising to me that most people these days fall for this bullshit. People are so socialist and collectivist minded these days. They believe the problem is the solution, i.e. the problem of multinational regulatory capture of the government is solved by more government regulation. Sigh.
Any way, I've been thinking about how we can get improved IP obfuscation anonymity on the low-latency internet without relying solely on low-latency Chaum mix-nets such as I2P and Tor. The solution can also work around Net Neutrality socialism.
Once we have a micro-payments decentralized crypto-currency (Bitcoin doesn't have the correct design), we can design turnkey software so that any one can turn their home WiFi router into a money making ISP. Drive-by clients can anonymously pay per packet to connect over the WiFi.
As these WiFi nodes become ubiquitous (due to their independent setup and profitability), they can begin to connect to each other in a mesh topology network, thus by passing (routing around) the internet backbone in case where the government has put in a packet filter.
Fuck the socialism! We hackers are in the process of radically changing this world. Stay tuned...
This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.
You seem so passionate, I don't understand why? Could you please explain me more?
A loss of net neutrality means that their will be priority routes on the information highway.
It also insinuates that any organization has the ability to control and throttle all types of traffic
It would have massive impacts on incumbents who can prioritize traffic, slow down new competitors because they couldn't pay for the priority channels and damage open source projects like Bitcoin and Bitorrent by restricting their traffic.
Any limitation on the ability to acquire information freely, on restricting content that is contrarian to the mainstream media, or on accessing information leads down a route of totalitarian control, similar to the governments having strong controls on newspaper television and radio stations, regulation on the internet will result in information control and restrictions that we do not have now and it begins with net neutrality.
https://time.com/3578255/conservatives-net-neutrality-poll/
Some 83% of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” were concerned about the possibility of ISPs having the power to “influence content” online. Only 17% reported being unconcerned. Similarly, 83% of self-identified conservatives thought that Congress should take action to ensure that cable companies do not “monopolize the Internet” or “reduce the inherent equality of the Internet” by charging some content companies for speedier access.
Other people argue though that if you can't pay for it then screw you.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/10/7-reasons-net-neutrality
Perhaps taxing the internet...
__
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/a-super-simple-way-to-understand-the-net-neutrality-debate.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
Simply put the internet is the electricity of the 21st century
The Internet is like electricity. It is fundamental to the 21st century economy, as essential to functioning in modern society as electricity. It is a public utility. “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” the president said in his written statement.
In the president’s logic, and that of the Internet content companies that are the most aggressive supporters of net neutrality, just as your electric utility has no say in how you use the electricity they sell you, the Internet should be a reliable way to access content produced by anyone, regardless of whether they have any special business arrangement with the utility.
Those arguing against net neutrality, most significantly the cable companies, say the Internet will be a richer experience if the profit motive applies, if they can negotiate deals with major content providers (the equivalent of cable channels) so that Netflix or Hulu or other streaming services that use huge bandwidth have to pay for the privilege.
(The argument though is that under the pay model, there is an incentive to build new infrastructure in order to get more profit hence a faster internet)
Hope that helped a bit.
. . .
Leviathan is “responsible” to his subjects. Pluto is not.
Leviathan is “responsible” to his subjects. Pluto is not.
Leviathan being the gov ? and what is Pluto? What does it mean "responsible"? And what is a subject of Leviathan?
I am so lost
1. Republican Democracy.
2. Plutocracy.
3. Expected to uphold the popular will, but does so to a minimum.
4. Citizenry.
all is clear, thx.
.very nice post RodeoX. However I have to disagree on a specific point, something wanting my money is already oppressive to me
. You are welcome.
very nice post RodeoX. However I have to disagree, something wanting my money is already oppressive to me .
. Thanks. I don't like their greed either.
At least for the moment we have some choice of competitors. These are many of the same people from cable TV. Look at how good they were at milking that system. If your old like me you might remember that cable TV was originally marketed as "Never watch a commercial again!". Now it's just commercials with a few short breaks for programs.
Oh and thanks stevegreer.
I don't think that the current attempt by ISPs and big media are "evil" they do not want to oppress you. They want your money.
The problem for them with the internet is that you have control over it. They would much prefer a system where the ISP controls what you see. That way they maximize their profits by directing you to businesses that have already bought you from the ISP. Nothing has to be free under this system. If you want to visit certain sites then you will pay more. Want the full internet, it's $200 per month. Want a walled garden your ISP made. $50. etc. Maybe pay by the webpage? Whatever your media overlords decide.
Remember how shitty America online was? That is the model that ISPs and places like Time-Warner want to see. You have net-neutrality now. What Obama is proposing is to secure that status legally. I really don't see how anyone but a media giant would want anything else. The internet was not built by ISPs, it was built from the ground up by users and now the ISPs want to take it for themselves. F-that.
https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality
The problem for them with the internet is that you have control over it. They would much prefer a system where the ISP controls what you see. That way they maximize their profits by directing you to businesses that have already bought you from the ISP. Nothing has to be free under this system. If you want to visit certain sites then you will pay more. Want the full internet, it's $200 per month. Want a walled garden your ISP made. $50. etc. Maybe pay by the webpage? Whatever your media overlords decide.
Remember how shitty America online was? That is the model that ISPs and places like Time-Warner want to see. You have net-neutrality now. What Obama is proposing is to secure that status legally. I really don't see how anyone but a media giant would want anything else. The internet was not built by ISPs, it was built from the ground up by users and now the ISPs want to take it for themselves. F-that.
https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality
Finally! Someone with a well-thought out and informative post on BCT! Great post!
1. State.
2. Plutocracy.
3. Expected to uphold the popular will.
4. The People.
2. Plutocracy.
3. Expected to uphold the popular will.
4. The People.
all is clear, thx.
.very nice post RodeoX. However I have to disagree on a specific point, something wanting my money is already oppressive to me
. . . .
Leviathan is “responsible” to his subjects. Pluto is not.
Leviathan is “responsible” to his subjects. Pluto is not.
Leviathan being the gov ? and what is Pluto? What does it mean "responsible"? And what is a subject of Leviathan?
I am so lost
1. Republican Democracy.
2. Plutocracy.
3. Expected to uphold the popular will, but does so to a minimum.
4. Citizenry.
I don't think that the current attempt by ISPs and big media are "evil" they do not want to oppress you. They want your money.
The problem for them with the internet is that you have control over it. They would much prefer a system where the ISP controls what you see. That way they maximize their profits by directing you to businesses that have already bought you from the ISP. Nothing has to be free under this system. If you want to visit certain sites then you will pay more. Want the full internet, it's $200 per month. Want a walled garden your ISP made. $50. etc. Maybe pay by the webpage? Whatever your media overlords decide.
Remember how shitty America online was? That is the model that ISPs and places like Time-Warner want to see. You have net-neutrality now. What Obama is proposing is to secure that status legally. I really don't see how anyone but a media giant would want anything else. The internet was not built by ISPs, it was built from the ground up by users and now the ISPs want to take it for themselves. F-that.
https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality
The problem for them with the internet is that you have control over it. They would much prefer a system where the ISP controls what you see. That way they maximize their profits by directing you to businesses that have already bought you from the ISP. Nothing has to be free under this system. If you want to visit certain sites then you will pay more. Want the full internet, it's $200 per month. Want a walled garden your ISP made. $50. etc. Maybe pay by the webpage? Whatever your media overlords decide.
Remember how shitty America online was? That is the model that ISPs and places like Time-Warner want to see. You have net-neutrality now. What Obama is proposing is to secure that status legally. I really don't see how anyone but a media giant would want anything else. The internet was not built by ISPs, it was built from the ground up by users and now the ISPs want to take it for themselves. F-that.
https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/protect-net-neutrality
Leviathan being the gov ? and what is Pluto? What does it mean "responsible"? And what is a subject of Leviathan?
I am so lost
I am so lost
This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.
You seem so passionate, I don't understand why? Could you please explain me more? A lose attempts to fight deflation in the tech industry by the cartels? I mean scam us ISP, so others methods will be found, and then you will die off, like Kodak. For me it's just an attempt by the ISP to extort more money by colluding and not wanting to invest in the infrastructure to compete in the marketplace by for example guaranteeing low latency or full continuous capacity. I don't want to block an ISP to provide a cheap absolutely QoSed (multitiers), high latency, 0 guaranteed capacity or what ever service... but I find it soo stupid to use such an ISP. I hate QoS (who the f are you to tell me that what I transmit is of low priority), then again I hate non stable band weight (what the fuck I paid for X up and down, I don't care if you can't make it continuous, what ever your excuse, bye), furthermore I think Deep packet inspection always leads to packet sniffers and stupidly increase latency, and finally I find that latency sucks, but physics is, and that only the speed of light (or what ever quantic method) shall limit my latency, and not a stupid isp or backbone provider or what ever that didn't upgrade his lines or machines and uses queuing during spikes to cheat everyone he contracted with. But more than that I prefer this vision :
"Open Internet
The idea of an open Internet is the idea that the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it are easily accessible to all individuals and companies. This often includes ideas such as net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized technological power, and is seen by some as closely related to open-source software."
than this:
"A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content."
And I think that net-neutrality simply mean that each packet is born equal to all others packets, and that only FIFO shall rules in all gateway and that the wideness of the gateway is continuously provided. I understand the financial gain that could be made in killing net neutrality, but they seems in my view very short sighted. As such I don't understand those that want to kill the idea that each packet is born equal, or those that want to change the status quo on this complex subject. I like the idea of peers on the internet each equal to have depending on the bw the same right as I do, and I think Net neutrality is necessary for peer to peer. And I don't like to have to read for each thing I do or contract 300 pages or more just to know that I need to read 3000 more to have a chance to understand anything... Open Law next goal?
“Controlling their access” is contrary to “net neutrality” (i.e., refraining from imposing content‐specific constraints upon internet navigation).
One thing leads to another. This is just a foot in the door for the ultimate goal of the government controlling access to the internet. Here are two quotes from the following article:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/cable-companies-obama-net-neutrality-proposals-fcc-fight
The cable and telcoms giants are particularly concerned by Obama’s call for FCC to reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Such a move would reclassify consumer internet as a “common carrier” service – like the telephone – and give the regulator greater power to control prices and services.
Obama’s endorsement “of 1930s era Title II classification would lead to unprecedented government interference in the internet, and would hurt consumers and innovation,” said lobby group Broadband for America.
Government is, itself, a proverbial “foot in the door.”
Jump to: