SaveTheInternet! (.com)

[Darren Dirt]

( As linked from http://manuelhp42.blogspot.com/2006/07/net-neutrality-where-does-your-senator.html )

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=videos

WOW, everyone from "RocketBoom" to (the RB clone) "MoBuzz" to (the brilliant non-clone of anybody) "AskANinja", and a buncha lesser knowns in between...



(Here's a YouTube "playlist" to watch a bunch as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45lzoe2Yd1w&search=neutrality -- including of course The Daily Show (Jon Stewart) )



http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#about

What is this about?

This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.

But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.

To learn more, read Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction (PDF)

What is Network Neutrality?

Network Neutrality ? or "Net Neutrality" for short ? is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data ? not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.

Learn more in Net Neutrality 101.

Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like.

-In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.

-In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.

-Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.

-In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com ? an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

- - -

^ Yay! We're famous! (Canada: leading the way in creative socialism and/or corporate tyranny!)

[Mr. Analog]

I'm sorry Darrenio, the Internet is in another castle.

[Darren Dirt]

Some of the videos (such as "TheSpartanLife") inject humour into the serious ramifications of this kinda "kill Network Neutraility" stuff going through...


Apparently the Wikipedia article detailing this is suprisingly...

well...

"neutral"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Background

[Mr. Analog]

As long as I can still get teh pr0n...?

[Darren Dirt]

Face-off (at left-of-centre ice) -- http://www.politicstv.com/dspan.php?load_id=62

[Tom]

As long as I can still get teh pr0n...?

Sure, but you'll have to pay extra for it.

[Mr. Analog]

As long as I can still get teh pr0n...?

Sure, but you'll have to pay extra for it.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Darren Dirt]

Rocketboom and AskANinja sure sum it up humourously. Worth a re-watching if you've already seen it. Better than spoiled kids on Christmas morning

[Darren Dirt]

Moyers on America -- The Net @ Risk (PBS special)

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html

[Tom]

From what I've gathered, the ISP want to gouge companies like Google for bandwidth they and the user already pays for. Somehow AT&T somehow thought that Google was getting a free ride on their network, when infact, the money google and every user pays, goes to their ISP, which pays for usage on networks like AT&Ts. Its just your typical money grubbing corporate attitude.

[Darren Dirt]

Net Neutrality has been talked about for almost a DECADE (in these forums!) WOW...

I think this is the thread with the most posts. (maybe merge with http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,5758.msg36518.html#msg36518 ? )


But I'm posting ITT to link to this Oatmeal* gem: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality




*a snarky but ("excellent explanation of how net neutrality actually works") in response to this politician's idiocy:
Senator Ted Cruz Verified account
‏@SenTedCruz
"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
7:43 AM - 10 Nov 2014 

[Darren Dirt]

On the subject of Net Neutrality... I have "flip-flopped" since 2015 before it got passed. At the time I sure believed all the fear-mongering. (And was a fan of Jon Stewart, and then Jon Oliver -- entertaining, but in hindsight they were often weak on actual facts).


And now there's even MORE fear-mongering going on about if NN is not "saved".

So imo it's good to have an open mind about what might actually happen... and even what exactly NN is.

It's not NEARLY as simple and one-sided as media personalities seem to want us to think.

It can also be helpful to consider what was the internet* like before 2015's "Net Neutrality"? And who is behind the big-money push to "save" it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB3bfrmfT-I


*including/especially on the subject of "free speech" -- which measurably has gotten worse SINCE it got passed, actually... If we the internet users are stuck between choosing the lesser of 2 evils, I am pretty sure it's worse to choose the FCC to not control content :cough:FairnessDoctrine:cough: and instead the better choice is to let the FTC to deal with fraudulent company actions etc... In the former case the voice-silencing companies will just continue to do what they have been doing for ... about 2 years, actually (see the video for a summary).

[Mr. Analog]

Free Speech =/= Net Neutrality, at least not at its core, but it does open that possibility.

Net Neutrality is only about treating all network traffic the same:
- no packet inspection
- no "throttle" based on content / route

ISPs aren't interested in shaping network traffic to make services better, they are more interested in creating a tiered packaged internet, like cable service providers currently do with television. So if you want Wikipedia you need to buy the bundle that includes Facebook and Twitter even if you don't use those services. "but that's crazy" you say and "nobody would do it that way" you say but that's exactly how it worked out in Portugal and New Zealand (see attached image)

Now that ISPs would be inspecting packet data to figure out what it is, where it's from and where its going, free speech could be throttled or blocked by an ISP if they chose to. Currently that isn't legal in Canada / US but it is legal in places like India and China, some sites you try connecting to just don't exist or are redirected to ISP or state-run sources.

[Thorin]

Man, you've got the US right-wing talking points down pat...