Author Topic: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?  (Read 420 times)

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56190
  • Gender: Male
Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« on: May 17, 2017, 01:55:20 PM »
Of course not! But the Marxist tried, and to date, no one has explained its benefits, probably because there is none!

A new study is out explaining the pitfalls of "net neutrality", loosely translated, means leveling the playing field, lower standards across the board to the point it looks like the European model of 30% less of everything across the board, including speed.


 “net neutrality.” But does anyone know what it means?
Law professor Tim Wu coined the phrase “network neutrality,” or “net neutrality,” in 2003
to describe a regulatory regime that requires broadband providers to let their subscribers
“use non-harmful network attachments or applications,” giving “innovators the
corresponding freedom to supply” such applications.”2 Since then, regulators, courts,
academics, engineers, and pundits have sought to clarify the meaning of “net neutrality,”
but determining whether a particular practice runs afoul of the principle remains challenging
to this day.3
One thing is clear, however. Net neutrality regulations harm consumers because they prevent ISPs from experimenting with the network configurations and pricing models that serve consumers best. Instead of regulating how broadband service is provided, Congress, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and governments at all levels should promote competition by making more spectrum available for commercial use and by
reducing barriers to deploying wireline infrastructure.
Past efforts by the FCC to establish net neutrality regulations have repeatedly failed in the courts. Though its latest effort, which was heavily influenced by the Obama White House, has survived, the new chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, is moving to repeal it. That is a welcome move because freeing the Internet’s infrastructure from burdensome regulations will allow greater innovation and restore open competition among Internet service providers (ISPs)

How It Works. To understand net neutrality, one must know a bit about how the Internet works. From web pages to video streams, all information that travels across the Internet is broken up into “packets,” each a tiny piece of the complete message or file. Specialized computers called “routers” direct these packets from their source to their destination, where they are reassembled in their proper order.4 The principle of net neutrality holds that
Internet service providers, also known as broadband providers, should generally treat every packet they transmit in the same manner, regardless of its application, source, destination, or meaning.


In 2005, the five-member FCC voted unanimously to adopt an “Internet Policy Statement”
that endorsed four principles, affirming that consumers are entitled to:
1. “[A]ccess the lawful Internet content of their choice;”
2. “[R]un applications and use services of their choice;”
3. “[C]onnect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;” and
4. Enjoy “competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.”11

In this policy statement, the FCC did not purport to exercise its regulatory authority pursuant to a delegation of power from Congress.12 Rather, the Commission explained that it would merely “incorporate” these four principles “into its ongoing policymaking activities.”13

Then in 2007, several news outlets reported that Comcast, a major cable ISP, was
interfering with its subscribers’ ability to upload content using BitTorrent, a popular peer-topeer
file sharing protocol.14 After initially denying these allegations, Comcast admitted that
it was targeting BitTorrent upload sessions in neighborhoods suffering from localized
network congestion.15 Later in 2007, two advocacy organizations filed a complaint with the
FCC alleging that Comcast had violated the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement.16

Much more~~~~~~~~~~
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Ryan%20Radia%20and%20Jessica%20Melugin%20-%20A%20Net%20Neutrality%20Primer.pdf
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Hoofer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4124
  • Gender: Male
  • HAM Radio - the last form of free expression
Net Neutrality = PAY MORE & REGULATE
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2017, 07:45:41 AM »
How many people mistakenly believe "the cloud" is something that mysteriously routes data packets from one place to another, without ever touching anything physical.

Nor do they understand companies OWN the fiber optic cables connecting everything together, and fiber and the equipment connected to it needs to be electrically energized and physically maintained.   Whether it's hung off of poles or buried in the ground, SOMEONE besides the government OWNS that fiber, and is paying to keep it active, every month in TAXES, pole attachment fees, electrical fees, marking underground utilities, etc.  Oh yes, the government has already figured out ways to TAX your internet usage, and it's all being passed on to the consumer... there is no such thing as FREE INTERNET.

Well, satellite... that's all through the air, right?   Wrong.   The links to the uplink stations (big dishes that transmit to and receive signals) are connected to the same fiber optic cables that eventually make up the Internet.   Somebody OWNS those fiber optic cables, and it's not the US government.   From the innercity cables to the Long Haul cables (the backbone), there are hundreds and hundreds of people, monitoring 24/7 to keep traffic flowing efficiently, and they are not paid by the government, but businesses.

If the cost of your internet seems HIGH... imagine the costs of "Net Neutrality" pricing you out of internet service.

What happens when government gets involved in building their own "Internet"?
Lynchburg Virginia, tried it, failed because they didn't have even the most basic understanding of how to build a system, sold the entire fiber system for $1, Ntelos was formed and the Taxpayer's dollars were completely wasted.  
Roanoke Virginia is trying the same thing - I expect the same results - but probably abandoned fiber, because they went CHEAP and the fiber is so shallow in the ground, using duct work that isn't suitable for direct burial (the fiber will be crushed, and will need to be dug up to replace, an expensive fix).  A complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

There are many good reasons why government needs to STAY OUT of the Internet business, number one - government cannot compete with businesses and be profitable, no matter how high or low their pricing is - the infrastructure costs are staggering.

Remember when Google thought they could bring fiber-to-the-door of every residence?  Sure, if you charge $1000 a month for it, you might break even.  Fiber is a whole different animal than COAX used for Cable TV & Internet.  (people's eyes are glazing over ... time to stop)   

Quoting Solar's message..
Quote
In 2005, the five-member FCC voted unanimously to adopt an “Internet Policy Statement”
that endorsed four principles, affirming that consumers are entitled to:
1. “[A]ccess the lawful Internet content of their choice;”
2. “[R]un applications and use services of their choice;”
3. “[C]onnect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;” and
4. Enjoy “competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.”11

1. Nobody is free to steal bandwidth (transport) any more than stealing their neighbor's car or riding the bus free.  Someone is PAYING for this, there is no such thing as FREE INTERNET.  Net Neutrality means stealing is lawful, net result is slower internet at higher costs.

2. Running applications that violate ISP established rules is akin to using the wrong bathroom, smoking in non-smoking areas, and a cook pissing in your food.  If you want "internet security" to work, there are rules to follow.  Those pesky pop-ups will flood your screen as ISPs try to recoup the cost of Net Neutrality.

3. Legal devices is a myth, this is written by someone who doesn't have a clue how the internet functions, how ISPs manage connectivity, or how LH (long haul) providers create the actual path your data takes.  Every single path is a point-to-point connection, managed by routers and LH gear.  It takes very specific gear to pass traffic from one point to the next, you cannot just "connect" or "tap" where and what you want.   There is no such thing as a "internet cloud" - that's a term for idiots who can't figure out how things work.  I regularly work in one of those "Clouds", hearing protection is required, fiber optic cables connect everything but the crap that moves at a snails pace... that uses CAT-6 cable.

4. The FAKE struggle between "content providers" and "service providers" is really, WHO IS GOING TO PAY for bandwidth.  Mind you, it's LIMITED bandwidth.  Like a 1/2" water hose, only so much volume of water can be forced through that hose.  We call those streams of bulk data "waves".  There is a limit how much water pressure a garden hose can take, just like a limit how much light POWER can be put through a skinny glass fiber before it melts, or at least distorts the signal.  Some businesses, like Hospitals, Police, Fire, EMS, and private businesses need LOTS of unobstructed bandwidth.  An architectural firm in Lynchburg with a central headquarters in Atlanta - actually PAYS for a clean "pipe" to operate efficient, productive office.  DUH!  There IS competition at all levels, between the providers... it is fierce and there is great pressure to reduce costs.  Net Neutrality is Internet SOCIALISM on steroids (you can own it, but, we'll tell you how to run your business).   YOU'RE going to PAY .....more.... for bandwidth, everywhere you connect, with Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality says the guy who wants to watch an online movie has a right to the architectural firm's bandwidth. 

Net Neutrality is government regulated THEFT of internet bandwidth.  It will eventually collapse all those fiber optic paths from your place to tim-buck-too, because the cost-of-doing-business is unprofitable.   Those optical cables will stop carrying that precious streaming traffic, and be filled with PAYING BUSINESSES at a profitable rate (which would be much cheaper for them, 'cause your junk isn't using bandwidth!)

If Net Neutrality is the final goal, a painfully SLOW, almost useless internet is the end result.   
Come to think of it, Universal Healthcare and Net Neutrality have a lot in common.
Net Neutrality is Government putting a filtering application of your internet device to regulate what you see and have access to.

One great thing about implemented Net Neutrality - the USPS (Post office) will see a resurgence in mail volume.
All animals are created equal; Some just take longer to cook.   Survival is keeping an eye on those around you...

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56190
  • Gender: Male
Re: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2017, 03:49:31 PM »
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Hoofer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4124
  • Gender: Male
  • HAM Radio - the last form of free expression
Re: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2017, 04:11:43 PM »
Well, there's always the dark web, as long as it remains unrestricted.
'

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/05/25/315821415/going-dark-the-internet-behind-the-internet

Carried in the same fiber sheath, same physical backbone, just a different strand... absolutely NONE of it is unmonitored.
Same goes for Internet II.
All animals are created equal; Some just take longer to cook.   Survival is keeping an eye on those around you...

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56190
  • Gender: Male
Re: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2017, 04:17:28 PM »
Carried in the same fiber sheath, same physical backbone, just a different strand... absolutely NONE of it is unmonitored.
Same goes for Internet II.
True, but it was set up by the Navy so they could hide their contacts via Tor.
Sure, the govt could do the same with the dark web, but another would spring up in its place.
If we ever get to that point, we no longer live in a free country and it will be our responsibility to remove it and build a new one.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline quiller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17781
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinstate dueling for Congress
Re: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2017, 03:19:15 AM »
The right encryption means it doesn't MATTER if you're intercepted, as long as that message reaches whom you intended it to. An early method was to tattoo a slave's head and let his hair grow out to cover it. That was the first one-time cypher. We're beyond all that now.

Offline Hoofer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4124
  • Gender: Male
  • HAM Radio - the last form of free expression
Re: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2017, 07:26:39 AM »
The right encryption means it doesn't MATTER if you're intercepted, as long as that message reaches whom you intended it to. An early method was to tattoo a slave's head and let his hair grow out to cover it. That was the first one-time cypher. We're beyond all that now.

Here's the real problem with encryption, now days, it's recorded, stored and possibly decrypted, not by people, but by very fast machines.

The WW2 German Enigma machine is fascinating, the pattern or "key" for encryption changed on every keystroke.  What a novel idea!
We did spread-spectrum and frequency hopping, another great idea!   But, it's so widely publicized, who *doesn't* know how it's done?  Even if you did frequency hopping, there is enough computer horsepower to collect it all and reassemble it, or store it realtime and reassemble it at will.   

The storage capacity is present that literally EVERYTHING that passes over fiber, 100% of Internet, Internet 2, Dark Web., whatever, is being recorded.  Encrypted, VPN, whatever, it's ALL being recorded... in several places too.  A handful of years ago, I couldn't say that, today, I'm sure of it. 

Where the road of regulation is leading us, obviously TAXATION to start with, and "control" next...   Privacy has nothing to do with the Internet.  This is an information war, we don't understand the depth we're already into it. 

Net Neutrality is the "carrot on the stick" trying to lead us into someplace we really don't want to go.
All animals are created equal; Some just take longer to cook.   Survival is keeping an eye on those around you...

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56190
  • Gender: Male
Re: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2017, 07:38:10 AM »
The right encryption means it doesn't MATTER if you're intercepted, as long as that message reaches whom you intended it to. An early method was to tattoo a slave's head and let his hair grow out to cover it. That was the first one-time cypher. We're beyond all that now.
Tis true, but the govt didn't encrypt an off switch into the head of the slave.
Whether it's a router or your browser, be assured, there's a govt off switch hidden in the language.

I truly believe the NSA is the mark of the beast.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline quiller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17781
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinstate dueling for Congress
Re: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2017, 04:22:20 PM »
Tis true, but the govt didn't encrypt an off switch into the head of the slave.
Lost me.

Quote
Whether it's a router or your browser, be assured, there's a govt off switch hidden in the language.

I truly believe the NSA is the mark of the beast.

I am not assured. Sure: they decrypt a top layer and find an entirely different code method underneath...and underneath...and underneath....

The National Security Act of 1947 put NSA under military control where it has almost never drawn public attention. That same act created the much-more-publicized, attention-getting CIA. If it's the mark of the Beast, then it carries rank insignia on its uniforms.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56190
  • Gender: Male
Re: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2017, 05:17:21 PM »
Lost me.

I am not assured. Sure: they decrypt a top layer and find an entirely different code method underneath...and underneath...and underneath....

The National Security Act of 1947 put NSA under military control where it has almost never drawn public attention. That same act created the much-more-publicized, attention-getting CIA. If it's the mark of the Beast, then it carries rank insignia on its uniforms.
Your point was encryption hidden from the enemy, I was pointing out that the enemy is the Federal Govt and unbeknownst to most, routers as well as most computers have an encrypted off switch the govt controls.
We may have a relatively free Internet, that is, up until the moment, the govt turns it off.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Hoofer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4124
  • Gender: Male
  • HAM Radio - the last form of free expression
Re: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2017, 05:50:05 PM »
Like I said, it can every easily be stored and decrypted *later*.  Whoever said, don't put anything on the Internet or you Iphone you'd be embarrassed if your Granny saw it... was right.

One of the fears people don't have, and might want to think about, posting stuff that could come back to bite them, later.
Donald Trump made some remarks about limiting Immigration from certain countries, and now ... like magic, some Judges have decided his executive order is something MORE than what he actually wrote in it - because of something he said in a campaign speech.

The dishonest one is the Judge, not Donald Trump!   Likewise, we hear in the MSM of some person arrested for something, and immediately, they jump on the web to dredge up whatever he/she might have said in jest, claiming that's their true intent and character - even going back a decade!?

If I said, "I LOVE Pink & Purple clothing, people who wear it are wonderful exhibitionists!"   
Time changes things... a decade later, some Jhadist group adopts a "Pink Flag with Purple Lettering - we are PINK!"
Ah-HA!!!  Hoofer is a Jhadist, see what he said? 10 years ago?  There is no Timestamp.

Donald Trump was AGAINST cutting taxes during the Ronald Reagan Presidency - even testified before Congress!  He said it would hurt "investments".  He's probably changed his mind from the 1980's.

IMO there is an inherent danger from being able to pull up any old thing from the internet, if GOVERNMENT regulates it.
All animals are created equal; Some just take longer to cook.   Survival is keeping an eye on those around you...

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56190
  • Gender: Male
Re: Should the Internet Be Regulated Like Ma Bell?
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2017, 06:10:22 PM »
Like I said, it can every easily be stored and decrypted *later*.  Whoever said, don't put anything on the Internet or you Iphone you'd be embarrassed if your Granny saw it... was right.

One of the fears people don't have, and might want to think about, posting stuff that could come back to bite them, later.
Donald Trump made some remarks about limiting Immigration from certain countries, and now ... like magic, some Judges have decided his executive order is something MORE than what he actually wrote in it - because of something he said in a campaign speech.

The dishonest one is the Judge, not Donald Trump!   Likewise, we hear in the MSM of some person arrested for something, and immediately, they jump on the web to dredge up whatever he/she might have said in jest, claiming that's their true intent and character - even going back a decade!?

If I said, "I LOVE Pink & Purple clothing, people who wear it are wonderful exhibitionists!"   
Time changes things... a decade later, some Jhadist group adopts a "Pink Flag with Purple Lettering - we are PINK!"
Ah-HA!!!  Hoofer is a Jhadist, see what he said? 10 years ago?  There is no Timestamp.

Donald Trump was AGAINST cutting taxes during the Ronald Reagan Presidency - even testified before Congress!  He said it would hurt "investments".  He's probably changed his mind from the 1980's.

IMO there is an inherent danger from being able to pull up any old thing from the internet, if GOVERNMENT regulates it.
Just be glad we didn't have Faceplant in the 60s and 70s, some of the shit I did and said would probably get me arrested today.
I honestly feel sorry for the Millennial today, they innocently posted partying pics, only to have it used against them a decade later when trying to get a job.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

 

Powered by EzPortal