Posted on Dec 11, 2017
Net Neutrality is Not Left Vs. Right, It's the Establishment Vs. Your Freedom
2.57K
32
25
13
13
0
Internet
Cyber
Privacy
Law
Freedom
Responses: 6
4
4
0
"Net neutrality" is a misnomer, in the first place. The internet is not "neutral", because whole aspects of the internet are controlled and influenced by any number of biases. At its best, this is good because competition drives the market to the public much better. At its worst, a monopolized control drives out all competition and unilaterally decides on its own what is and is not "best".
If the government gets involved, then the government biases will also be controlling and influencing the internet, and they'll be doing it as a whole, not as part of a competitive, multifaceted network system. And government itself isn't about "neutrality"...it's about what the government thinks is best for the GOVERNMENT. Because, in the end, government is about "control" and "power".
This is reflected throughout the whole of human history and is why it eventually culminated in our U.S. Constitution, which was written specifically to curtail/limit the government's control and power over the citizens.
In my opinion, the government influence over "net neutrality" should be limited to the existing laws with respect to monopolies. We don't need any more BS government involvement in the internet.
And our own government has already demonstrated it's utter lack of concern about the privacy of citizens with respect to the internet and any form of digital communications already.
Anybody remember a software program called "Carnivore"? How about "MYSTIC"? The "Patriot Act"? "Boundless Informant"? "Magic Lantern"?
Want to see how far the government is willing to go with respect to the internet? Google "Utah Data Center" and do a little reading.
Or, a bit before the Utah Data Center, look up "Clipper Chip". This was an NSA encryption chip, meaning government developed and pushed, which was to be installed in any new phone or other communications device (read: computers), with it's own encryption key...and a conveniently built in government accessible backdoor to "allow Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials the ability to decode intercepted voice and data transmissions". Fortunately, cryptographic software made this obsolete before it was deployed.
The government has quite thoroughly established what it thinks about the internet and how its interests are best served with respect to it. And quite frankly, "net neutrality" ain't its concern.
If the government gets involved, then the government biases will also be controlling and influencing the internet, and they'll be doing it as a whole, not as part of a competitive, multifaceted network system. And government itself isn't about "neutrality"...it's about what the government thinks is best for the GOVERNMENT. Because, in the end, government is about "control" and "power".
This is reflected throughout the whole of human history and is why it eventually culminated in our U.S. Constitution, which was written specifically to curtail/limit the government's control and power over the citizens.
In my opinion, the government influence over "net neutrality" should be limited to the existing laws with respect to monopolies. We don't need any more BS government involvement in the internet.
And our own government has already demonstrated it's utter lack of concern about the privacy of citizens with respect to the internet and any form of digital communications already.
Anybody remember a software program called "Carnivore"? How about "MYSTIC"? The "Patriot Act"? "Boundless Informant"? "Magic Lantern"?
Want to see how far the government is willing to go with respect to the internet? Google "Utah Data Center" and do a little reading.
Or, a bit before the Utah Data Center, look up "Clipper Chip". This was an NSA encryption chip, meaning government developed and pushed, which was to be installed in any new phone or other communications device (read: computers), with it's own encryption key...and a conveniently built in government accessible backdoor to "allow Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials the ability to decode intercepted voice and data transmissions". Fortunately, cryptographic software made this obsolete before it was deployed.
The government has quite thoroughly established what it thinks about the internet and how its interests are best served with respect to it. And quite frankly, "net neutrality" ain't its concern.
(4)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
Capt Nick S - It's not quite that simple, Nick.
Here's one example of a conundrum. What if the ISP provider is being forced to carry his competitor's content at the ISP provider's expense? I don't think any private business should be made to shoulder the burden of supporting his competitor's business.
Or another: What if being forced to carry certain content "equally" means a degradation elsewhere? One of the aspects of net neutrality, as I recall from reading on it when the issue first came out, was upload speeds vs. download speeds. There was a clamor for the two to be "equal". But the upload and download speeds are a balance of the effects on overall bandwidth on the service being provided. If you increase the upload speeds, then this uses more bandwidth, which slows down the download speeds. There is far more downloading of content that uploading of content by private users.
What if someone wants to provide an ISP service which purposefully blocks adult content, for those who wish to limit access to such content in their own homes? Should they be required by law to provide access to various pornography sites on the basis that such pornography is legal? What business does the government have in dictating such to a private business?
There are other issues which directly impact the future expansion of the internet infrastructure, as well.
Regardless...net neutrality is not "neutral", most especially when the government gets involved.
Here's one example of a conundrum. What if the ISP provider is being forced to carry his competitor's content at the ISP provider's expense? I don't think any private business should be made to shoulder the burden of supporting his competitor's business.
Or another: What if being forced to carry certain content "equally" means a degradation elsewhere? One of the aspects of net neutrality, as I recall from reading on it when the issue first came out, was upload speeds vs. download speeds. There was a clamor for the two to be "equal". But the upload and download speeds are a balance of the effects on overall bandwidth on the service being provided. If you increase the upload speeds, then this uses more bandwidth, which slows down the download speeds. There is far more downloading of content that uploading of content by private users.
What if someone wants to provide an ISP service which purposefully blocks adult content, for those who wish to limit access to such content in their own homes? Should they be required by law to provide access to various pornography sites on the basis that such pornography is legal? What business does the government have in dictating such to a private business?
There are other issues which directly impact the future expansion of the internet infrastructure, as well.
Regardless...net neutrality is not "neutral", most especially when the government gets involved.
(1)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
Capt Nick S - Whether we can block access in our own homes is beside the point in my example. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with people starting up and operating their own ISP which provides exactly such a service. And yet, the government would forbid it.
As for pricing...now you're saying that net neutrality is there to control prices? Now we're going beyond "net neutrality" as a concept and incorporating other aspects of control mandated by the government.
As for ISPs having the power to limit information we can see based on their leadership's political leanings...isn't that exactly what the government would be doing, by default?
The more government control we have, the more the government is in control. In the long run, that's not what "freedom" is about.
It's fascinating how we've made the transition from a government historically founded on the people placing limitations and restrictions to the government to a condition where the government is placing ever increasing limitations and restrictions on the people.
And so many people are perfectly happy with this.
As for pricing...now you're saying that net neutrality is there to control prices? Now we're going beyond "net neutrality" as a concept and incorporating other aspects of control mandated by the government.
As for ISPs having the power to limit information we can see based on their leadership's political leanings...isn't that exactly what the government would be doing, by default?
The more government control we have, the more the government is in control. In the long run, that's not what "freedom" is about.
It's fascinating how we've made the transition from a government historically founded on the people placing limitations and restrictions to the government to a condition where the government is placing ever increasing limitations and restrictions on the people.
And so many people are perfectly happy with this.
(0)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
Capt Nick S - And what's the actual problem with charging not to throttle speed? It's not must money...it's about service overall, as well. Bandwidth and speed go hand in hand.
80%. I love it when polls give us information like this. Polls are the most misunderstood, and abused, act of gauging people's knowledge and feelings on anything. I'm not seeing this 80% in favor, and I have a job which covers a pretty broad spectrum of people.
That said, "the will of the people" will doubtlessly be manipulated into net neutrality laws.
The historical reality is that ISPs have respected the open internet almost without exception. allowing unfettered access at reasonable prices. There has been NO real huge market debacle on this issue which would have required the government to step in.
80%. I love it when polls give us information like this. Polls are the most misunderstood, and abused, act of gauging people's knowledge and feelings on anything. I'm not seeing this 80% in favor, and I have a job which covers a pretty broad spectrum of people.
That said, "the will of the people" will doubtlessly be manipulated into net neutrality laws.
The historical reality is that ISPs have respected the open internet almost without exception. allowing unfettered access at reasonable prices. There has been NO real huge market debacle on this issue which would have required the government to step in.
(0)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
History hasn't shown any rampant lack of such respect. It's an overblown, hyped up problem.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
How Repealing Net Neutrality Could Affect Schools' Internet Access
If the Federal Communications Commission chooses to repeal net neutrality regulations, it could affect access to the Internet for schools across the country. NPR's Kelly McEvers talks to Richard Culatta, CEO of the International Society for Technology in Education, about the potential impact on classrooms if net neutrality is repealed.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The Internet was created as a strategic communications network. It was opened to the public so that more switches could be added without the government bearing the expense. (More switches make the Internet less vulnerable to failure if attacked) I think someone in the government forgot this. Diddling with the system now will diminish its redundancy and make it more vulnerable. From our point of view, it appears as an attack on us. Favoring commercial users over public users will mute the voices of those who actually helped defeat the Left in the last election. Is this their real purpose?
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
You got that from my comment? Please let me know what is your native tongue and I will attempt to respond in that
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Capt Nick S - It's a simple statement of fact. You may choose to be offended by it and attempt to offend me in turn.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Capt Nick S - Some facts simply aren't, and I'm as mellow as they come. In fact, I'm in the middle of moving and, being 75, completely wasted, too tired to give a fig about much of anything. Thus, I am simply answering the question as I see it.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google