End of Net Neutrality

[zoogs]

This isn't even a surprise. It's not some hidden Republican priority that snuck up on us. It has been about as overt as could possibly be for a long time.

 

How on this good green earth does a party with such blatant priorities retain any "freedom" and "people's rights" credibility?

[Making Chimichangas]

As Zoogs said, the most worrisome aspect of all this is Republicans saying all along this is what they want to do.

 

And the over-whelming majority of rank and file Republicans seem to be indifferent to this issue. I guess they only care about freedom being encroached upon when liberals are in control of the government.

 

[VectorVictor]

This isn't even a surprise. It's not some hidden Republican priority that snuck up on us. It has been about as overt as could possibly be for a long time.

 

How on this good green earth does a party with such blatant priorities retain any "freedom" and "people's rights" credibility?

 

Because this same party sells ignorance as a virtue, Christianity as a necessity, and punishes the questioning of their authority (all while questioning the authority of others at the expense of the nation it claims to serve).

[Making Chimichangas]

So Republicans, Trump voters, where are you at on this?

[84HuskerLaw]

I am not familiar with exactly what the current rules are but apparently, if the effort currently is to end a current government regulation, then it is probably a good thing. Most government intervention in the economy results in LESS competition and LESS free trade and any time one restricts access to the buying public, the result is higher prices for consumers and less choice.

 

The internet has brought about monumental change in our society and culture and many aspects of our economy. And like almost all change, some of it is beneficial and some of it is not. The more free and open and unfettered the internet and access thereto becomes, the better for the public. But, that does not mean that everything about the continuing expansion and intertwining of the information 'super highway' will be pleasant or 'good' in the eyes of many. The uncontrolled disemination of information has its risks as has been so apparent in recent years with the explosion of 'news' from sources not all that reliable and often those sources have ulterior motives and hidden agendas. Lies, slander and lible, defamation, misrepresentation and other destructive or harmful information and misinformation is rampant in our society today. The speed of false rumors and outright fabrications to be circulated amongst the populous is unprecedented in world history.

 

As bad as this may be, it is almost not debatable that having any government in control as the speech regulator would be the beginning of the end of freedom for all. The legal system is decades behind the curve in providing mechanisms for proper redress of libel and slander in this environment, not so much because there are no tort actions that would provide remedies for wrongful internet communications, but rather that the ability to publish without appropriate identification of those creating the speech enables the malicious ones to avoid accountability. And coupled with the ability to rapidly spread the malicious utterances maximizes the damage done. This sort of thing was not possible prior to the internet's arrival.

 

The inhibition of monopoly power by the biggest players in the web world is certainly a worthy effort but the focus has to be the maintenance of competitors to enter the marketplace and not, in the process of controlling those, making it more difficult or impossible for new entrants. But, there is an ever growing government interest in preventing the people from exptressing their dissatisfaction with government intrusion into their lives. Keeping voices of dissent from being heard is the biggest single threat to liberty and the diminution of individual civil rights and freedom in general.

[NM11046]

You need to read about it 84. You may actually align to many of us - based on what you typed above.

[Making Chimichangas]

I am not familiar with exactly what the current rules are but apparently, if the effort currently is to end a current government regulation, then it is probably a good thing. Most government intervention in the economy results in LESS competition and LESS free trade and any time one restricts access to the buying public, the result is higher prices for consumers and less choice.

 

The internet has brought about monumental change in our society and culture and many aspects of our economy. And like almost all change, some of it is beneficial and some of it is not. The more free and open and unfettered the internet and access thereto becomes, the better for the public. But, that does not mean that everything about the continuing expansion and intertwining of the information 'super highway' will be pleasant or 'good' in the eyes of many. The uncontrolled disemination of information has its risks as has been so apparent in recent years with the explosion of 'news' from sources not all that reliable and often those sources have ulterior motives and hidden agendas. Lies, slander and lible, defamation, misrepresentation and other destructive or harmful information and misinformation is rampant in our society today. The speed of false rumors and outright fabrications to be circulated amongst the populous is unprecedented in world history.

 

As bad as this may be, it is almost not debatable that having any government in control as the speech regulator would be the beginning of the end of freedom for all. The legal system is decades behind the curve in providing mechanisms for proper redress of libel and slander in this environment, not so much because there are no tort actions that would provide remedies for wrongful internet communications, but rather that the ability to publish without appropriate identification of those creating the speech enables the malicious ones to avoid accountability. And coupled with the ability to rapidly spread the malicious utterances maximizes the damage done. This sort of thing was not possible prior to the internet's arrival.

 

The inhibition of monopoly power by the biggest players in the web world is certainly a worthy effort but the focus has to be the maintenance of competitors to enter the marketplace and not, in the process of controlling those, making it more difficult or impossible for new entrants. But, there is an ever growing government interest in preventing the people from exptressing their dissatisfaction with government intrusion into their lives. Keeping voices of dissent from being heard is the biggest single threat to liberty and the diminution of individual civil rights and freedom in general.

 

The broad overview of current rules (not sure if the new FCC Chairman's directives have taken effect yet) states that the internet is to function like a public utility.

 

Public utilities just provide service to people who pay. Public utilities do not decide which customers get preferred service.

 

Under new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, he wants to re-classify how the internet is defined. He wants to move it away from the "public utility" model and allow internet providers to prioritize which traffic has the best/fastest speeds. There are also regulations protecting consumers and our privacy. Those are on the chopping block also.

 

 

net neutrality, a rule created in 2015 that prevents internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against internet traffic.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/technology/trumps-fcc-quickly-targets-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0

 

 

The reason net neutrality is so important is because is keeps the internet free where all ideas can compete. In business, a little mom and pop place can appear in the same search as a mega-corporation offering the same good and/or service.

 

Once net neutrality ends, internet providers will then get to dictate which content you see. This will invariably cause businesses to get into a bidding war because obviously, you'd want your company to appear at the top of any search. When businesses start paying more and more to make sure their traffic/sites are the priority, they're going to raise prices on consumers.

 

If companies can't, or won't, pay the prices internet providers demand, access to their sites will be slowed down or restricted altogether.

 

Basically, doing away with net neutrality gives ISPs a free pass to engage in legalized extortion.

 

And it's not just businesses at risk either. Free speech will be stifled. Imagine if content that criticizes Trump is completely restricted and denied. You may, in a moment of delusion, think that would be great. But imagine what you would think if it was Obama, and those on the left in power, and they wanted to stifle your criticism of them? You'd be rightfully outraged.

 

A free, neutral, and open internet is the only way to go. Yes, that means that groups like isis, nazis, and other disgusting hate-mongers have their content equal to content promoting tolerance and peace, but that's what freedom means.

 

84HuskerLaw, please read up on net neutrality and join the fight to keep the internet free and neutral.

[Nebfanatic]

If you think this is an issue please make your

voice heard.

 

www.gofccyourself.com

 

Press express and enter your information to help keep the net neutral

 

Edit:yes that url actually links to the right place but for some reason the link is broken when I posted it. But you could just copy and paste that address and it will take you to the right place.

[Danny Bateman]

Send them a note while you're at it!

Battleforthenet.com

 

If you don't understand what net neutrality is or have any questions, feel free to ask. It's very important for the future of the internet as we know it.

[zoogs]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/13/15964202/att-fake-support-of-net-neutrality-protests

If you weren’t paying close attention yesterday, it may have looked like AT&T got onboard the net neutrality “day of action” protest. (...)

But (...) AT&T is carefully wording around the fact that it’s opposed to the net neutrality order that activists are fighting for. What’s worse: it’s trying to get people to send an email to legislators and the FCC that pushes its own agenda, while masquerading as something in support of the same cause yesterday’s protest was about.

AT&T has a series of pre-written messages that you can email out after filling in some personal details, like your name, phone number, and address. The messages aren’t editable. (...) Here’s a sampling of excerpts:

• “There is a right way and a wrong way to preserve the concept of an open internet. I am in favor of protecting the open internet with legislation.”
• “I agree with the FCC that it doesn’t make sense to apply an 80 year-old regulatory scheme to the internet.”
• “While I support the FCC’s work to get rid of the rules that were harming the internet economy, I believe the only way to permanently guarantee an open internet is by Congress creating a law.”

 

Comcast and Verizon have done the same thing (previously covered, too; it's not the first time). Don't fall for it. These telecom giants are not your friends. It's nothing more than an egregiously dishonest and deceptive stunt.

[VectorVictor]

Bumping this since it's unfortunately relevant again in that the vermin that have infested Washington are trying to do away with Net Neutrality. 

[NM11046]

What does it really mean?  Some real examples:

 

 

[VectorVictor]

This has already happened in Portugal, where they did away with net neutrality. It was almost overnight and Internet costs not only more than doubled in many cases, there’s been “Problems” with TV over ISP providers having steams throttled down or dropped.

[commando]

this makes sense

 

 

[Landlord]

freaking write your congressmen!