Net Neutrality is Not Neutral and it Will Radically Change The Internet

[rgray222]

I feel compelled to start this thread because net neutrality is vastly misunderstood and it quickly slipping under the radar. First off the name "net neutrality" is very dishonest. Net neutrality actually means government control of the internet. This would ultimately result in higher cost, slower speeds, slower technological innovations and government control of delivered content

Obama wants to regulate the internet as a public utility under the Title II Common Carrier Law of 1934. Just ask yourself how that is working out with land lines and cell phones. It is a mess, confusing and for the most part expensive. There are a small handful of companies that have a strangle hold on service. They are huge corporations that can hire lobbyist, manipulate lawmakers and make billions in the process.

The government and the media no longer have the control of all the news being delivered to mainstream population. The internet has allowed the public to decided what is important content, to decided what they want to read and view. The public can now share that information with millions of others instantly. This change is hard for the government to accept and it is killing off entrenched mainstream media outlets one at a time.

Make no mistake about it, net neutrality is an effort to regain control by government and tax us along the way. Net neutrality may sound like a good idea but in the end it amounts to nothing more than total control of the information that the public consumes.

[yelik]

The illuminati / cabal must censor the Internet to prevent the truth from spreading and awakening the sheeple. David Cabal Cameron, UK Prime Puppet has said in plain English that is what he has been told to do.

[Innocent Warrior]

Screenshot of the future...



https://www.battleforthenet.com

[Limor Wolf]

indeed, control and regulation on the internet is one of those moves that were expected and predicted quite a while ago, and the current earth government with it's controlling attempts tactics is going for it.

In one of his posts Wade Frazier's linked and commented on this news item

Feds Hold Hearing On Whether They Should ‘Regulate’ Sites Like Drudge, Infowars And The Economic Collapse Blog

The control freaks that run our government always seem to want to “regulate” things that they do not like. And so it should be no surprise that there is a renewed push to regulate independent news websites. Sites like the Drudge Report, Infowars.com and The Economic Collapse Blog have been a thorn in the side of the establishment for years. You see, the truth is that approximately 90 percent of all news and entertainment in this country is controlled by just six giant media corporations. That is why the news seems to be so similar no matter where you turn. But in recent years the alternative media has exploded in popularity. People are hungry for the truth, and an increasing number of Americans are waking up to the fact that they are not getting the truth from the corporate-controlled media. But as the alternative media has grown, it was only going to be a matter of time before the establishment started cracking down on it. At the moment it is just the FEC and the FCC, but surely this is just the beginning. Our “Big Brother” government ultimately wants to control every area of our lives – and this especially applies to our ability to communicate freely with one another.

The Federal Election Commission is an example of a federal rule making body that has gotten wildly out of control. Since just about anything that anyone says or does could potentially “influence an election”, it is not difficult for them to come up with excuses to regulate things that they do not like.

And on Wednesday, the FEC held a hearing on whether or not they should regulate political speech on blogs, websites and YouTube videos…"

See the link:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...-collapse-blog

[ponda]

[Alpha141]

I have contemplated this deeply myself. It, the Internet and our access is a bit of an assumption to life now. I visualise myself what it must have been like 500yrs ago when this stuff was of beyond dreams. It is an enormous blessing and privilege to have. The access to the human collective on any topic you are curious about to me cannot be anything but such a thing.

For me i consider access to the Internet a human right now. Not a luxury. For all no matter where each person are. It is an aspect of exploring freewill. It is one of the greatest ways to find your soul family who are here to break the incarnation system to achieve the purpose you chose to be here. And, why it is to become a battleground (more-so that it already is). Meeting soul family is like a completion of who you are. We have all had those instances of meeting someone who rocks our world for many days....that is soul family reunion in the physical. Many areas that have been devastated by war in the past for no seemingly valid reason is when that region's soul group link up threshold gets to around 10%...because that is when amazing things happen. So, this particular battle ground for those reasons make the internet a prime target also. As, time, space and location are also no longer a limitation to this. Perhaps challenging concepts if you have not heard them. Perhaps also challenging as the efforts to not get it to have your radar on for others to find you is important to restrict.

Thanks for exploring a great topic

[Maunagarjana]

The FCC already has regulatory oversight over the internet. The change is to Title II from Title I. Also, telecoms are all FCC licensees because they use telco infrastructure and public airwaves. My prediction: the sky will not fall. The larger threat to the internet comes from the telecoms, imho.

About the tax issue, see these articles:

http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/1...nd-confuse-law

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...ime-explained/

[rgray222]

The neutrality aspect of this bill means that the government wants to insure that content is delivered neutrally. You need to ask yourself what is wrong with the way the content is being delivered today. Yes, Google and some of the big search engines have algorithms that might make it difficult for some content to be found, maybe even impossible for some content to be found. But what you would be getting with this bill is content that the government deems to be neutral using algorithms that the government decides are politically correct.

The government would be regulating something that changes by the week, day, minute and second. Even now the government is proposing to regulate the internet as a utility with a bill written and approved in 1934. How could they possibly regulate the internet in a way that would satisfy the masses. The answer is they couldn't. Even if they create a huge bureaucratic division to handle the internet they will inevitably make a mess of it. Don't believe me just look at the IRS, Dept of Homeland Security etc.

There is nothing "systemically" wrong with the way content is being delivered today. Why do we need the government to regulate it? Making and regulating the internet as a utility will not make the internet experience better for anyone on planet earth. Internet content is being delivered about as neutral as it gets, why do we need the government involved?

By the way this is not just an American issue, net neutrality bills are also being proposed in the EU.

[ponda]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
The FCC already has regulatory oversight over the internet. The change is to Title II from Title I. Also, telecoms are all FCC licensees because they use telco infrastructure and public airwaves. My prediction: the sky will not fall. The larger threat to the internet comes from the telecoms, imho.

About the tax issue, see these articles:


http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/1...nd-confuse-law

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...ime-explained/

You might find this article interesting


Who’s Going to Sue the FCC Over ‘Net Neutrality’? The Cable Lobby!

Whatever your interest is in the internet and world wide web, it’s important to take a few minutes of your time to learn about Net Neutrality…

Make no mistake – this issue is all about monopolies. The big players are hoping to lock-down the market for themselves in the US, fix prices across the board, and then allow Central Government to do what it likes, and when it likes – when it comes to spying and stealing data from its citizens (subjects). Google, Yahoo and Facebook control the front of house, while telecoms giants Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon control the back of house, and we should expect that this cartel will want to charge us whatever they collectively decide and we are willing to cough up for access to their “new super highway”.

Digital rivers are flowing with riches and the richest mega corporations will buy out the smaller ones – guaranteeing monolithic decision-making for the digital cartel.

As long as lobbyists are controlling our elected officials like marionettes, then this problem will only persist and threaten the internet as we know it…



The Switch

A top lobbyist for the cable industry is signaling that his organization will probably sue the government over its proposed net neutrality rules when the time comes.

Although board members at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association haven’t resolved to sue, it’s “highly likely” the trade group would join a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, said NCTA president and chief executive Michael Powell.

“I think it’s just too dramatic, too serious a change not to ask the court to review the propriety of what the commission did,” said Powell, in a forthcoming interview with The Washington Post on C-SPAN’s “The Communicators,” “particularly when so much of it rests on whether it had the authority to do it in the first place.”

The FCC will vote Feb. 26 on a controversial proposal to apply strong new rules to Internet providers. The draft regulation, which is modeled after the same legal tool used to oversee phone companies, would seek to ban discriminatory treatment of different Web services such as Netflix and Amazon. The aggressive rules are sought by consumer advocacy groups and President Obama, who have argued that strong oversight is the only way to preserve a free and open Internet.

Critics of the plan have called it a politically motivated “power grab” by the federal government that could lead to regulation of the prices Internet providers charge consumers. It could also result in the regulation of end-user services such as Google and Facebook, they warn.

Republican opponents of the proposal have also demanded that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler release his draft rules to the public weeks ahead of the agency’s vote. Powell — a former Republican chairman of the FCC — said Thursday that he would comply with the request if he were in Wheeler’s shoes.

“The chairman’s correct in saying that past practice is generally not to do so,” said Powell. “But it’s also equally true that nothing prevents him from doing so should he choose.”

Powell is partly responsible for kickstarting a lengthy fight over net neutrality. In 2005, his commission approved a series of Internet principles that were later used by other FCC chairs against a number of companies, including Comcast.

Several court battles later, the FCC is about to vote on the strongest rules ever for Internet providers. It’s expected to be a partisan affair, with the commission’s three Democrats supporting the move over objections from the agency’s two Republicans and from conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Powell said that when he initially proposed his open Internet principles, he didn’t anticipate the political firestorm that net neutrality has become…

Continue this story at The Switch

READ MORE NET NEUTRALITY NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Net Neutrality Files

[Maunagarjana]

It's not what's wrong with the way content is delivered today that is the issue. Things are fine.....for now. But if nothing is done, it will not stay like it is now. The issue is how the telecoms want to change things in the very near future. Net neutrality is intended to head this off before it happens. It's intended to preserve the internet as it is now, not overhaul it. A lot of the fear mongering about net neutrality is just industry propaganda. Some of it is ideological objections by people who don't like the government doing anything ever.

[rgray222]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
It's not what's wrong with the way content is delivered today that is the issue. Things are fine.....for now. But if nothing is done, it will not stay like it is now. The issue is how the telecoms want to change things in the very near future. Net neutrality is intended to head this off before it happens. It's intended to preserve the internet as it is now, not overhaul it. A lot of the fear mongering about net neutrality is just industry propaganda. Some of it is ideological objections by people who don't like the government doing anything ever.

I really have to disagree with you. You are asking for government regulation for something that may or may not happen. This is the attitude that lets the government creep in and take control of something that is working just fine. Today, the Internet is essentially unregulated and unfettered by the federal government. But President Obama is calling for the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a utility and heavily regulate ISPs as if they’re monopolies, which they’re not. He’s using the debate to give the FCC enormous power over Internet pricing, products and service.

Net neutrality is not an issue. Federal regulation of the Internet is. That is the only threat consumers need to worry about.The government will inevitably dumb down the internet, increase the price and control content. If you think that operating at the speed, efficiency and cost of government is a good things then by all means let the government regulate your internet. Be careful what you wish for, you may actually get it!

[rgray222]

The Chairman of the FCC is refusing to appear in front of congress to discuss net neutrality. Also Obama and the Chairman of the FCC refuse to release details of this new bill. Their silence speaks volumes and should be a red flag to everyone that uses the internet.

[Maunagarjana]

Again, the government already regulates the internet. This is a fact. So your scaremongering about this is nothing more than beating on a strawman. This issue is about whether it remains classified as an information service, or is reclassified as a telecommunications service. Either way, it is regulated by the FCC. It's just a matter of how. But this fact is obscured by the snake oil salesmen and hucksters that propagandize for the telecoms, because the telecoms want to set themselves up as gatekeepers that people will have to pay up the wazoo to get privileged access.

The internet does not belong to the telecoms. It belongs to ALL OF US. It was created as a DARPA/Department of Defense project, funded by taxpayer dollars. Corporations have helped build on the infrastructure, but we didn't need them to do that. We allowed them to. The telecoms should consider themselves lucky that they were allowed to participate and profit from this amazing resource. But when they overreach, as they have been trying to do, they need to be checked, and hard. Reclassifying the internet as a utility, as the White House and FCC chief is recommending, can prevent this abuse by the telecoms from happening. It is a very elegant solution. I'm actually amazed that they are doing something right for once. I've been saying this needs to be done for years.

[rgray222]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
Again, the government already regulates the internet. This is a fact. So your scaremongering about this is nothing more than beating on a strawman.

The only snake oil salesmen I see in this crowd work for the government. 330 pages of new regulations that they are insisting to be voted on by Congress before they release the details is not only bizarre but obscene. Please explain how you think the internet is already regulated. I read the links you post and there is no explanation there. Most of their "fearmongering" in those links is the sky will fall on the internet if we don't get these new secret regulations. Accepting more government regulation for something that may or may not happen is a position that I would never be willing to take. I am curious as to how you think 330 pages of new law, from a bill written in 1934, treating the internet as a public utility will help the internet. This is not an elegant solution this is an secretive disaster being perpetrated by Obama that many people are accepting with their eyes wide open.

Again, how exactly is the internet regulated today and how will 330 pages of new secret regulation make the internet better for all of us. Also why would you be willing to accept regulations that you know nothing about, the government refuses to release any detailed info. The four page summary they released is vague and deceptive.

[Maunagarjana]

It regulates it as an information service.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Ca.../nrcb0201.html

Rush Limbaugh is fighting this with the same rhetoric as you. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (non-profit digital rights watchdog group) is in full support of net neutrality. They are the group that I trust the most when it comes to internet freedom. That tells me all I need to know.

Why do they have 330 pages? Because they want it to hold up in court. I think once this passes, as it inevitably will because it has bipartisan support, people will see it's largely a non-issue, and pretty much a no-brainer.

http://www.cnet.com/news/net-fix-8-b...et-neutrality/

[Dennis Leahy]

The word "regulation" deserves its own topic. Freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, Anarchists...all have promoted the idea that ALL regulation is bad, all freedom is good. The problem as I see it is a matter of semantics and scope, and if the freedom-seeking people, Libertarians, and Anarchists would simply modify their call for the least top-down regulation possible for individual PEOPLE, acknowledging that CORPORATIONS need to be regulated, then I'd agree.

Corporations are - by charter, by law - greed-based and (if corporate charters are compared with the definition for "sociopath" in the DSM IV), corporations qualify as sociopathic. Much of the insanity and ecocide in the world today is the result of the LACK OF regulation on corporations. Corporations buy legislation to disempower "the people" and to empower themselves.

"The government" deserves its own topic too, and (though I know I sound like a 'broken record'), the problem, as I see it, is that the Elite have commandeered the entire electoral paradigm and can thus apply strict filtration to the election process ensuring that the Elite are completely represented and that "the people" have absolutely no representation whatsoever. No one alive on this planet can even imagine what a "government of the people" would be like, because none of us have ever experienced it. Assumptions are made that "government is bad" based on fascist/corportocratic/oligarchic governments. The meme has been passed around that "power corrupts", and most people believe it - even though they have never experienced a government that was made up of ordinary citizens not tied to the Elite and corporations.

The specifics of the "Net Neutrality" laws that the current Elite-aligned, corporate-controlled US government will pass (it makes no difference whatsoever how much citizen protest or petitions are tendered, whatever the Elite-aligned lawmakers want to pass they will pass) will not protect citizens nor protect 'net neutrality' - but telecommunications corporations will not protect citizens nor protect 'net neutrality' either. It's a lose-lose for citizens. Until and unless some movement (such as The Reset Button Movement) gives ordinary citizens control of the government and permanently flushes the minions of the Elite from all governance positions, these are the kind of lose-lose proposals that will be presented to the public. Siding with allowing the US government to pass a Net Neutrality law (Orwellian-named, and will at least erode if not destroy net neutrality) may be a tiny bit better for citizens than having the telecom corporations to do whatever they want, which will destroy net neutrality. With the current Elite-controlled government and corporations as the only two choices, there's not much of a gray zone between the "lose" and the "lose" of the lose-lose that will be the result.

In my view, the government needs to regulate these corporations, and net neutrality - real net neutrality - needs to be the goal. If we actually had a government that was composed of ordinary citizens with no corporate ties, then I'd breathe a sigh of relief if the (citizen-centric) lawmaking body was writing legislation to protect the Internet from corporate greed. So, I think rgray222 has a point to be extremely skeptical of a corporate-controlled government writing any laws. I also think that Maunagarjana has a point that these corporations need to be regulated by the government (the "free market" cannot and does not regulate monopolistic corporate giants), and the law (that the government will pass) may be the least smelly pile of poop in citizen's lose-lose on this issue.

[The Lawnman]

Net Neutrality = Internet [anti] neutrality - Just like the "Affordable Healthcare Act" has nothing to do with being "affordable", its all about gaining control over your "physical" body. There is always an adverse agenda when things are done behind closed doors, in secret and it usually doesn't end up well for the general public. The UNITED STATES Corp and its subsidiary [private] CORPORATE partners are the only ones who will benefit from "Net Neutrality" legislation. Follow the money, somebody is paying somebody back for their campaign contributions or future private sector employment opportunities.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
It's not what's wrong with the way content is delivered today that is the issue. Things are fine.....for now. But if nothing is done, it will not stay like it is now. The issue is how the telecoms want to change things in the very near future. Net neutrality is intended to head this off before it happens. It's intended to preserve the internet as it is now, not overhaul it. A lot of the fear mongering about net neutrality is just industry propaganda. Some of it is ideological objections by people who don't like the government doing anything ever.

Posted by rgray222 (here)
I really have to disagree with you. You are asking for government regulation for something that may or may not happen. This is the attitude that lets the government creep in and take control of something that is working just fine. Today, the Internet is essentially unregulated and unfettered by the federal government. But President Obama is calling for the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a utility and heavily regulate ISPs as if they’re monopolies, which they’re not.

...

Net neutrality is not an issue. Federal regulation of the Internet is. That is the only threat consumers need to worry about. The government will inevitably dumb down the internet, increase the price and control content.[/B]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
The Chairman of the FCC is refusing to appear in front of congress to discuss net neutrality. Also Obama and the Chairman of the FCC refuse to release details of this new bill. Their silence speaks volumes and should be a red flag to everyone that uses the internet.

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
Again, the government already regulates the internet. This is a fact. So your scaremongering about this is nothing more than beating on a strawman. This issue is about whether it remains classified as an information service, or is reclassified as a telecommunications service. Either way, it is regulated by the FCC. It's just a matter of how.

...

I'm actually amazed that they are doing something right for once. I've been saying this needs to be done for years.

Posted by rgray222 (here)
The only snake oil salesmen I see in this crowd work for the government. 330 pages of new regulations that they are insisting to be voted on by Congress before they release the details is not only bizarre but obscene. Please explain how you think the internet is already regulated.

...

Again, how exactly is the internet regulated today and how will 330 pages of new secret regulation make the internet better for all of us.

Please get a couple of your key facts straight, rgray222 .

The Internet in the US is regulated by the FCC at present, as an information utility.

The FCC, not Congress, will be voting on this (yes, large and secret) regulation change.

Cable companies do have a de facto monopoly over broadband Internet for most Americans. For example, I presently have the following choices:

• Continue to do business with Charter, my local broadband Internet provider, at whatever price and on whatever terms they impose.
• Convert to dial-up, DSL or satellite, which are sufficiently slower and/or more expensive that I could no longer be the primary backup service for this forum.
• Move to another location with some other location, with some other broadband provider, equally subject to monopolistic tyranny, which is not a practical option for me except under extraordinary duress.

I of course cringe when I find myself supporting one large entity, in order to protect myself from another large entity.

I of course cringe when I hear some large entity saying they have to keep something secret from me, for my own good.

But, in this case, to keep a few de facto near-monopolies of the back end (such as Google, Amazon, Skype, Facebook, Netflix) and the even more dominant de facto monopolies (a cartel, more accurately, of a few large companies splitting up the US Internet market) of the critical infrastructure from holding the Internet for ransom, the FCC is the essential counter-balance, in which role it appears that they are about to act, tomorrow.

The US Courts were quite clear that the FCC had the legal authority to reclassify Internet providers as common carriers to be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act, and that the FCC would need to make such a reclassification in order to have the authority to impose some of the net neutrality regulations they supported.

[rgray222]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
Why do they have 330 pages? Because they want it to hold up in court. I think once this passes, as it inevitably will because it has bipartisan support, people will see it's largely a non-issue, and pretty much a no-brainer.

The question is not why it is 330 pages, the question is why are they insisting on a vote before the information is released to lawmakers or the public. Why do they have a need to be secretive about this bill.

You probably can answer the question yourself if you're honest.
It will not holdup to public scrutiny. It would change the internet in ways that the public would not accept otherwise they would be eager to share this information.

Trying to politicize this issue is a backhanded way of getting people to choose sides. A long used favorite tactic of mainstream media and politicians There is no way, shape or form that this is a political issue. This is government control of the internet. It is not regulated now and it works extremely well even with its flaws. These regulations will apply to democrats, republican. libertarians and independents. These regulations could care less about your politics. Do you really think the government can do a better job of deciding which content you should be viewing than you can do on your own.

Also, why should bills ever be passed without lawmaker or public inspection? This is absurd. How can anyone even pretend to be for or against something if you really have no idea what is in it. Yes, the talking heads and the media have launched their pro and con campaigns but that is beyond idiotic when we don't have any of the details. I am against more government regulation. I am bitterly against secret, undisclosed, backdoor, sleazy government regulation. This is exactly what this bill is.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
The question is not why it is 330 pages, the question is why are they insisting on a vote before the information is released to lawmakers or the public. Why do they have a need to be secretive about this bill.

You probably can answer the question yourself if you're honest.
It will not holdup to public scrutiny. It would change the internet in ways that the public would not accept otherwise they would be eager to share this information.

Trying to politicize this issue is a backhanded way of getting people to choose sides. A long used favorite tactic of mainstream media and politicians There is no way, shape or form that this is a political issue. This is government control of the internet. It is not regulated now and it works extremely well even with its flaws. These regulations will apply to democrats, republican. libertarians and independents. These regulations could care less about your politics. Do you really think the government can do a better job of deciding which content you should be viewing than you can do on your own.

Also, why should bills ever be passed without lawmaker or public inspection? This is absurd. How can anyone even pretend to be for or against something if you really have no idea what is in it. Yes, the talking heads and the media have launched their pro and con campaigns but that is beyond idiotic when we don't have any of the details. I am against more government regulation. I am bitterly against secret, undisclosed, backdoor, sleazy government regulation. This is exactly what this bill is.

It is NOT a Bill -- The proposed laws that our US lawmakers in Congress vote on are called "bills". This is not such.

This is a FCC regulatory action, apparently within the scope of their legal authority, and apparently done, as usual, without public review prior to the vote. That practice, and that authority, may indeed be worth criticizing, but let's at least get our facts straight.

What we are being told, that this is a move to make basic broadband Internet service, like water, electricity and telephone service, basic services provided on regulated fair terms to almost everyone by what are for all practical purposes monopolies, prohibiting abuse of that monopoly to extract exorbitant fees, tolls and restrictions, is one of the more reasonable uses of central government power in my view.

Yes, this action pushes many alarm bells, with its secret use of central power for purposes unknown to us.

But we do not know, are not allowed to know, at this time, what are the real problems of this action, be they hidden in other parts of this proposed regulation, or in other seeming unrelated actions not publicized at all.

We do not serve our purposes well by repeatedly pushing the obvious alarm bells, with inaccurate claims. Fear tends to narrow one's vision. Such might be useful if the fear is correctly focused on the actual threat. Fear is usually harmful when misdirected.

Rgray222 - please don't keep pushing the buttons of fear on this issue using incorrect information. We need to stay alert and calm, not jumping at shadows (granted some menacing and well known shadows.)

Please help us focus our energies, which are substantial, to figuring out what is really going on here.