@sicknsolo what does it censor? How does it work? I still don't understand what the govts trying to do or why. Is it a case of websites have to pay to get fast speeds or something?
@NeverBeenTimid
It's merely another step towards complete control.
Hopefully this earlier post helps to elaborate.
lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/urgent-save-net-neutrality#1
It's all part of an agenda that goes beyond just "the internet".
I will leave it at that.
It's merely another step towards complete control.
Hopefully this earlier post helps to elaborate.
lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/urgent-save-net-neutrality#1
It's all part of an agenda that goes beyond just "the internet".
I will leave it at that.
One has to peel away all the fear mongering to get to the bottom of this debate.
Net Neutrality in the US, classifies internet traffic as a heavily regulated telecommunications service. Basically, everyone must use the same infrastructure, kind of like railroads. Everyone has to use and build the same internet railroads so that anyone else can use the same infrastructure. The proposed repealing of net neutrality would classify internet traffic as a lighly regulated information service. Meaning that anyone can adapt new technologies and infrastructure to get the internet to you. If frees companies to innovate and not be required to share technology they develop with competitors. This is where the fear mongering comes into play. The scaremongers despise this and are afraid themselves of what innovation and freedom could bring to the internet.
Another point of the existing net neutrality laws is that under the existing regulations, they make the FCC both judge and jury in any disputes. If repealed, under the lighter regulations, disputes would fall under the FTC, thus there would not be a single entity making and enforcing the rules. The scaremongers will tell you that to repeal means more tighter control, but that is false.
Net Neutrality in the US, classifies internet traffic as a heavily regulated telecommunications service. Basically, everyone must use the same infrastructure, kind of like railroads. Everyone has to use and build the same internet railroads so that anyone else can use the same infrastructure. The proposed repealing of net neutrality would classify internet traffic as a lighly regulated information service. Meaning that anyone can adapt new technologies and infrastructure to get the internet to you. If frees companies to innovate and not be required to share technology they develop with competitors. This is where the fear mongering comes into play. The scaremongers despise this and are afraid themselves of what innovation and freedom could bring to the internet.
Another point of the existing net neutrality laws is that under the existing regulations, they make the FCC both judge and jury in any disputes. If repealed, under the lighter regulations, disputes would fall under the FTC, thus there would not be a single entity making and enforcing the rules. The scaremongers will tell you that to repeal means more tighter control, but that is false.
@manyhued Another sheep who hasn't been paying attention to the last few decades. I could say many many things here, but I'll leave it alone. Get back to chess.
manyhued raises several very valid points.
There exists two perspectives to this complex issue. The railroad analogy fits perfectly. A few corporations now posses a monopoly on the internet. This is nothing new. It started with Oil, Railroads, Steel, Banking and Electricity. Those with power will go to every end to maintain their control. Threaten doom and gloom if they lose control. Their argument is they provide a free and efficient internet service (but how free is it and how efficient?) They have to answer only to the FCC, a puppet entity they control.
Repealing the regulations opens the doors to wide sweeping changes, many of which may initially prove to be more costly. (But hasn't this always been the way of free enterprise? The brilliant new entrepreneurs manage to get it right in the end.) Who can predict what the changes will bring? This is where the "fear mongering" comes to play. Why change what is working?
The unknown may show to be a struggle between new, smaller corporations, all vying for everybody's wallet, making unproven claims and sending the internet into disarray without needed regulations in place.
It is a subject much like politics. There are two opposing sides with no middle ground. Objective perspective gets thrown out the window.
There exists two perspectives to this complex issue. The railroad analogy fits perfectly. A few corporations now posses a monopoly on the internet. This is nothing new. It started with Oil, Railroads, Steel, Banking and Electricity. Those with power will go to every end to maintain their control. Threaten doom and gloom if they lose control. Their argument is they provide a free and efficient internet service (but how free is it and how efficient?) They have to answer only to the FCC, a puppet entity they control.
Repealing the regulations opens the doors to wide sweeping changes, many of which may initially prove to be more costly. (But hasn't this always been the way of free enterprise? The brilliant new entrepreneurs manage to get it right in the end.) Who can predict what the changes will bring? This is where the "fear mongering" comes to play. Why change what is working?
The unknown may show to be a struggle between new, smaller corporations, all vying for everybody's wallet, making unproven claims and sending the internet into disarray without needed regulations in place.
It is a subject much like politics. There are two opposing sides with no middle ground. Objective perspective gets thrown out the window.
History shows us monopolies created by Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan eventually were all forced to break up into smaller companies with new names. But what happens? The moguls simply buy all the stock of the new companies and double their power, wealth and control.
Forcing corporations as Verizon to break up into smaller companies, creating new competing companies, thinking a greater amount of oversight can be put into place, that better, faster service will be provided may likely prove not to be true. A strong argument for maintaining the status quo.
In the U.S. though, the policy of monopoly busting has eventually always prevailed. Gov't puts on a face of not liking monopolies. Makes a big show of it by making itself appear in favor of the little guy. But of course, none of that is true. Gov't knows full well by breaking up monopolies into smaller companies only doubles that corporations wealth and control as they are the 1st to by the new stock through proxies.
Forcing corporations as Verizon to break up into smaller companies, creating new competing companies, thinking a greater amount of oversight can be put into place, that better, faster service will be provided may likely prove not to be true. A strong argument for maintaining the status quo.
In the U.S. though, the policy of monopoly busting has eventually always prevailed. Gov't puts on a face of not liking monopolies. Makes a big show of it by making itself appear in favor of the little guy. But of course, none of that is true. Gov't knows full well by breaking up monopolies into smaller companies only doubles that corporations wealth and control as they are the 1st to by the new stock through proxies.
A federal government plan to roll-back an Obama-era internet rule designed to level the online playing field would result in censorship on the web that would disproportionately affect women and minorities, experts said.
The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday to end so-called net neutrality, which ensures internet service providers give consumers equal access to all content and do not favor or discriminate against certain sources or users.
The internet—unlike print and television media outlets—currently works as a way around gatekeepers. Consumers can get the information they want at the exact time they want it. But this could soon change. Critics fear the expected approval of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal would allow broadband providers to favor "popular" content and slow or block others they may find controversial.
"The open Internet has allowed women to bypass traditional patriarchal gatekeepers in media and the economy to speak for themselves and gain access to opportunities and income streams that might otherwise be unavailable to them," Malkia Cyril, the executive director of The Center for Media Justice, told Newsweek. "A repeal ... will open the door for a heightened level of online discrimination and censorship that can only reduce voice and opportunity for women."
Copied
Sound like fear mongering or is the issue really about discrimination?
The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday to end so-called net neutrality, which ensures internet service providers give consumers equal access to all content and do not favor or discriminate against certain sources or users.
The internet—unlike print and television media outlets—currently works as a way around gatekeepers. Consumers can get the information they want at the exact time they want it. But this could soon change. Critics fear the expected approval of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal would allow broadband providers to favor "popular" content and slow or block others they may find controversial.
"The open Internet has allowed women to bypass traditional patriarchal gatekeepers in media and the economy to speak for themselves and gain access to opportunities and income streams that might otherwise be unavailable to them," Malkia Cyril, the executive director of The Center for Media Justice, told Newsweek. "A repeal ... will open the door for a heightened level of online discrimination and censorship that can only reduce voice and opportunity for women."
Copied
Sound like fear mongering or is the issue really about discrimination?
Federal regulators are expected to vote Thursday morning to allow Internet providers to speed up service for some apps and websites — and block or slow down others — in a decision repealing landmark, Obama-era regulations for broadband companies such as AT&T and Verizon.
The move to deregulate the telecom and cable industry would be a major setback for tech companies, consumer groups and Democrats who lobbied heavily against the decision. And it would be a sweeping victory for Republicans who vowed to roll back the efforts of the prior administration, despite a recent survey showing that 83 percent of Americans — including 3 out of 4 Republicans — opposed the plan.
Led by Chairman Ajit Pai, the Federal Communications Commission and its two other GOP members on Thursday are expected to follow through on a promise to repeal the government's 2015 net neutrality rules, which sought to force Internet providers to treat all online services, large and small, equally. The agency is also expected to go a step further, rejecting much of its own authority over broadband in a bid to stymie future FCC officials who might seek to regulate providers.
Copied from Reuters
The move to deregulate the telecom and cable industry would be a major setback for tech companies, consumer groups and Democrats who lobbied heavily against the decision. And it would be a sweeping victory for Republicans who vowed to roll back the efforts of the prior administration, despite a recent survey showing that 83 percent of Americans — including 3 out of 4 Republicans — opposed the plan.
Led by Chairman Ajit Pai, the Federal Communications Commission and its two other GOP members on Thursday are expected to follow through on a promise to repeal the government's 2015 net neutrality rules, which sought to force Internet providers to treat all online services, large and small, equally. The agency is also expected to go a step further, rejecting much of its own authority over broadband in a bid to stymie future FCC officials who might seek to regulate providers.
Copied from Reuters
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.