Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Net Neutrality


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#81
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,248 posts

Twitter and others warn FCC of 'disastrous' net neutrality reversal

 

https://www.engadget...utrality-rever/

 

Introduction:

 

(Endgadget) Twitter, Pinterest, Reddit and Airbnb were among 200 firms that signed a letter warning FCC Chairman Ajit Pai not to roll back net neutrality, according to Broadcasting & Cable. Dated on Cyber Monday (November 27th), the letter notes that record Black Friday sales are "a testament to the power of the free and open internet to encourage entrepreneurship, drive innovation, make our lives easier, and to support a healthy economy."

 

The letter was delivered three weeks ahead of the upcoming December 14th vote, in which the FCC is expected to reclassify wired and wireless internet services providers (ISPs) as "information services." That would reverse the recent FCC decision under Tom Wheeler that classified internet providers as utilities, subjecting them to stricter regulations.

 

Businesses may have to pay a toll just to reach customers. This would put small and medium-sized businesses at a disadvantage and prevent innovative new ones from even getting off the ground.

 

"Disastrously, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week released a draft order that would end this open commerce by repealing the current net neutrality rules and eliminating the protections that keep the internet free and open for America's businesses and consumers," the letter reads.

 

The decision would also eliminate rules that ban paid prioritization, throttling and other practices that many consider consumer-hostile. It would then be up to the FTC, rather than the FCC, to watch over ISPs, which would essentially be operating on the honor system. That was how things worked up until Wheeler's 2015 decision, and it didn't work very well at all.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#82
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,248 posts

 

So people are pushing back? Let's see how it goes. 

 

Not just people, but corporations as well.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#83
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,248 posts

Below is a press release and so usual restrictions on length of citation should not apply.

 

Net neutrality protests to hit Verizon stores across the U.S. during busy holiday shopping season

 

https://demandprogre...hopping-season/

 

 

(Demand Progress) Internet users outraged by Verizon-lawyer-turned-FCC-Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to gut net neutrality are planning to protest at Verizon retail stores across the country on Thursday, December 7th, one week before an expected vote at the FCC. In some cities, protesters will march from Verizon stores to lawmakers’ offices.

 

The protests will highlight the company’s role lobbying to kill rules that prevent telecom giants from charging extra fees, engaging in censorship, or controlling what Internet users see and do through discriminatory throttling. Protesters will carry signs calling on their members of Congress to speak out against Verizon’s attacks on net neutrality and publicly oppose the FCC’s plan, which is expected to be released this week.

 

See the website announcing the protests here: VerizonProtests.com

 

Ajit Pai’s plan is expected to contain a “total repeal” of net neutrality protections, posing a grave threat to the future of freedom of expression, access to information, and small businesses particularly for communities of color and low income communities.

 

The December 7th protests represent growing grassroots backlash to the FCC’s plan, which polls show is wildly unpopular with people from across the political spectrum. The events are supported by Team Internet, a grassroots network of nearly half a million volunteer activists spearheaded by Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, and Free Press Action Fund, three of the groups behind the massive July 12 net neutrality day of action that drove millions of comments, emails, and phone calls to the FCC and Congress. Over recent months the groups behind the protests have organized thousands of constituents to attend more than 600 town halls and meetings with lawmakers to demand their support for net neutrality. A phone call campaign through BattleForTheNet.com has generated nearly 250,000 phone calls to legislators offices.

 

At the protests participants will be encouraged to take a group photo and tweet it at their local members of Congress. Where possible, protesters will march to a nearby lawmaker’s office and deliver petition signatures.

 

Protests are currently planned in Phoenix, Denver, San Francisco, New York City, Indianapolis, Boston, and several other cities across the country. They’re being organized by volunteers in a grassroots manner using email, texting, and social media. Local Internet users can volunteer to host a protest, and then connect with other volunteers in their area and encourage them to attend. There will be a special protest event in Washington, DC, details are TBA.

 

“Americans are sick and tired of lawmakers placing the profits of monopolistic companies like Verizon and Comcast above the interests of ordinary people,” said Mark Stanley, Director of Communications for Demand Progress. “Outside Washington, support for strong net neutrality is widespread, regardless of political affiliation. Now, with what would be a catastrophic vote by the FCC to repeal net neutrality looming, people are ready to take to the streets in protest and to offer Congress one last chance to answer the question: ‘Do you stand for your constituents’ ability to communicate and connect, or do you stand for Verizon’s bottom line?’”

 

“This is the free speech fight of our generation and Internet users are pissed off and paying attention” said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, “Ajit Pai may be owned by Verizon, but he has to answer to Congress, and lawmakers have to answer to us, their constituents. The corrupt bureaucrats trying to kill net neutrality are hoping to avoid public backlash by burying the news over the Holiday weekend. We’re taking our protest from the Internet to the streets to make sure that doesn’t happen,” she added.

 

“While FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been busy meeting with industry lobbyists and greedy Verizon executives, he should not ignore the millions of people who are joining together to reject his plan to kill off Net Neutrality,” said Free Press Action Fund Field Director Mary Alice Crim.“People in almost every state across the country have been meeting with hundreds of members of Congress and their staff, organizing others in their communities, and speaking out on behalf of the open internet. They know that the open internet is essential for accessing everything from elder care to mental health services and they’re willing to fight for it. This momentum of popular support for Net Neutrality will spill into the streets beginning December 7 as people protest Pai and his corporate cronies outside Verizon stores nationwide. Our message to Pai and Verizon is clear: people everywhere will not sit idle as you destroy the free and open internet.”


  • rennerpetey likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#84
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    To infinity, and beyond

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • LocationLost in the Delta Quadrant

Screenshot-2017-10-28_MEO_-_Televis%C3%A

what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagr

This is Portugal.  They do not have net neutrality.  Here is what their internet looks like.


  • wjfox likes this

Pope Francis said that atheists are still eligible to go to heaven, to return the favor, atheists said that popes are still eligible to go into a void of nothingness.


#85
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,255 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

This is Portugal.  They do not have net neutrality.  Here is what their internet looks like.

So?


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#86
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    To infinity, and beyond

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • LocationLost in the Delta Quadrant

 

So?

 

This is a possible glimpse at our country (the US) when they repeal net neutrality.


  • wjfox and Sciencerocks like this

Pope Francis said that atheists are still eligible to go to heaven, to return the favor, atheists said that popes are still eligible to go into a void of nothingness.


#87
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,514 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

They should support net neutrality on the basis of the Right to Freedom of Movement which should also be applicable to cyberspace as well.


  • wjfox and Sciencerocks like this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#88
Zaphod

Zaphod

    Esteemed Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • LocationUK

Repealing net neutrality will massively reduce productivity and competition. Anyone who is pro-capitalist, pro-consumer and pro-human should support it.

 

Elon Musk once described the internet as "humanity acquiring a nervous system". Removing net neutrality is like giving humanity a neurodegenerative disorder.


  • wjfox, Sciencerocks, Casey and 2 others like this

#89
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,514 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Removing net neutrality it is like giving humanity a neurodegenerative disorder.

 

A major dislocated disc, to boot.


  • Sciencerocks likes this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#90
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,766 posts

More power to our masters is all repealing it does. Must say no to this shit1


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#91
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc

no point in swaying him guys. just waiting until most of the republican party dies of natural cases. then, no worries about internet freedom being taken away.


  • Sciencerocks likes this

#92
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,970 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

So?

 

So you're happy with corporations deciding what websites you're allowed to view, and deciding what speeds you can view them at?



#93
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,255 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

 

So?

 

So you're happy with corporations deciding what websites you're allowed to view, and deciding what speeds you can view them at?

 

We've talked about this. We have no right to their property.

 

You want change, start your own ISP.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#94
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,766 posts

Corporations(super rich) are becoming just like the barons of old. They will have more rights and power then the little peon that has to beg for scraps...No such as rights or consumer protections in this world that we're bringing back.

 

Jakob loves this idea as he is brainwashed with  as stalin once said to be their useful idiot.


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#95
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,255 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Corporations are becoming just like the barons of old. They will have more rights and power then the little peon that has to beg for scraps...

 

Jakob loves this idea as he brainwashed with to be as stalin once said to be their useful idiot.

640px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreeme


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#96
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,155 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

 

 

 

So?

 

So you're happy with corporations deciding what websites you're allowed to view, and deciding what speeds you can view them at?

 

We've talked about this. We have no right to their property.

 

You want change, start your own ISP.

I'm just saying, you dogmatically believe this the same way communists dogmatically believe no one has the right to any property at all. Sooner or later, this will come to a head and I don't want to be around for when that happens.


  • wjfox and rennerpetey like this
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#97
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,248 posts

Property rights and Net Neutrality

 

http://zgp.org/~dmar...roperty-rights/

 

property-rights.jpeg

This photo shows a virtual, alternative Alameda.

 

 

 

It's a mockup to show proposed new AT&T network gear to be installed on a public sidewalk in Alameda, California. As an Alameda resident, I got it in my postal mail as part of the city approval process. (The brown box is already there. The light green box isn't there yet, and AT&T is asking the city for permission to put it there.)

 

Both boxes, existing and planned, are on the public sidewalk. And the lines that connect to them run under the same sidewalk. And that's the missing part of the whole "Net Neutrality" debate. It's not just about the big bad government trying to regulate the fiber owner's private property, it's about whether or not the fiber owner can obtain rights of way under one usage model, then convert them to another.

 

Net-based businesses depend on fiber, but the fiber installers depend on the goodwill of property owners and local governments. If the companies that run the fiber are the "pipeholders", don't forget about the "dirtholders."


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#98
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,248 posts

Why Some on The ‘Right’ Get Net Neutrality Wrong 

 

https://www.publickn...ty-wrong-part-2

 

Introduction:

 

Net Neutrality is neither pervasive nor burdensome. It allows for innovation and investment. It allows for telephone companies to sell different levels of service to different customers. Parents can still protect their children. What it doesn’t allow is discrimination. That’s why Michele Combs from the Christian Coalition supports an open Internet, and she is brave and correct to do so in the face of uninformed criticism of her fellow “conservatives.”

 

As it turns out, there is a real world example of how well this works, because there is a company that is currently under a Net Neutrality mandate. As a condition of its purchase of BellSouth, AT&T agreed to a two-year condition in which it is forbidden to provide any service that “privileges, degrades or prioritizes” any packets of data based on “source, ownership or destination.”

 

…(Positive economic) results (for AT&T) were achieved under mandated Net Neutrality, the original, fundamental characteristic of the Internet that protects the individual consumer’s freedom to innovate without permission and to receive, and pay for, the services he or she chooses. Why a conservative opposes that, is a mystery of unsolvable proportion.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#99
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,248 posts

Putting net neutrality in context

 

https://phys.org/new...ty-context.html

 

Extract:

 

Like the telephone, broadcast and cable predecessors from which they evolved, the wire and mobile broadband networks that carry internet traffic travel over public property. The spectrum and land over which these broadband networks travel are known as rights of way. Congress allowed each network technology to be privately owned. However, the explicit arrangement has been that private owner access to the publicly owned spectrum and rights of way necessary to exploit the technology is exchanged for public access and speech rights.

 

The telephone company monopoly's use of public rights of way came with common carrier non-discrimination obligations. The broadcaster's receipt of exclusive use of a coveted radio spectrum license came with public trustee obligations. Similarly, a cable operator's essentially exclusive local franchise came with obligations to provide public, educational and government access channels.

 

Except under very limited circumstances (violation of criminal law), the telephone company could not deny service based on content. And, while the broadcaster's programming choices were largely insulated from government oversight, the broadcaster was still responsible for providing public access to news, public affairs and political speech. Finally, the cable operator could exercise substantial editorial control over most channels, but larger cable systems had to set aside channel capacity for the public. Each of these compromises was deemed constitutional by the courts.


….The reclassification of ISPs as common carriers brings us back to the beginning, after learning yet again, what the prescient 1934 Congress that passed the original laws knew: privately owned media facilities essential to public speech must be available to all.

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#100
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,248 posts

Net Neutrality Equals Theft?

 

https://www.techdirt...0/0243209.shtml

 

 

 

 

(Techdirt) Yesterday, I pointed out, with disbelief, a new report from the Progress and Freedom Foundation that actually claimed that open spectrum discouraged innovation and investment, despite plenty of clear examples where that was false (WiFi) and other examples where the system they advocated (expensive auctions) resulted in spectrum auctioned off for billions of dollars that was then never used. However, it took barely 24 hours for PFF to top itself. They put on an event, where the co-founder of the group actually said with a straight face: "Net neutrality is, in fact, the theft of property rights from [broadband] infrastructure providers. It's simple regulatory theft -- the transfer of ownership from one group of people to another group of people." This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to believe that anyone actually pays good money to PFF for their thoughts on things -- until you realize that the companies paying PFF that good money are those broadband infrastructure providers who don't want network neutrality at all.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      First of all, that statement ignores that plenty of broadband infrastructure was built up as a government backed monopoly, using our tax dollars that was later privatized with the promise that it would be kept open and neutral since we all paid for it. While many telcos are now replacing that infrastructure, they still do have the right of way to lay new infrastructure that almost no one else actually haves -- granting them monopoly (or in some cases, duopoly) rights. It's these issues that display the importance of network neutrality. However, if PFF wants to talk about "theft," perhaps they'd like to comment on all of the regulatory subsidies granted to the broadband providers over the years, in exchange for promised services that they never delivered (and probably never will)? That seems a lot more like theft than simply requiring that monopoly infrastructure plays fair with services that run on that infrastructure.

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users