Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Net neutrality is being threatened.
America's Debate > Policy Debate > Domestic Policy
Google
Supposn
Net neutrality is being threatened.

I fear that president Trump and our current U.S. Congress will eliminate net neutrality and further reduce our privacy. The ease, speed, and availability of our participation within forums such as this one will be significantly reduced.

Remember, cable TV was first introduced as comparatively inexpensive and/or less commercials. Beware of the promises made by those who would undermine or otherwise reduce the concept of net neutrality.

Respectfully, Supposn


Sorry; topic description is a keyboard error.
Google
AuthorMusician
It doesn't strike me as a big issue, since a neutral Internet has never existed. Here's why:

1) Internet speeds depend on network infrastructure (cables, equipment), and that infrastructure isn't homogeneous. It will probably never be homogeneous due to how tech advances faster than implementation can keep up.

2) You don't know what you've got until it's gone or, and this is very important, it never shows up. In the Internet reality, if it doesn't show up in searches, it might as well not exist. Related, sites with the money can buy search rankings, thereby reducing the competition.

3) The issue boils down to whether the Internet needs oversight and regulation.

Like any other necessary utility, I think the Internet does need oversight and regulation to avoid price gouging and other nefarious schemes common to all business sectors. When people talk about net neutrality, this is what they really mean. It's a big part of the reason why people don't understand it.

Looks to me that your average consumer/voter won't understand until the poo hits the fan, and then it'll be too late. But unlike cable TV, the Internet utility has lots of potential workarounds:

Set up private networks like the BBS days

Use physical media (flash memory, disks, little high-cap HDD -- would work to drop cable too)

Batch downloads (FTP -- not necessarily public but would make low speeds more tolerable)

Non-Internet advertising (like in the olden days)

While I'd like to see fairness enforced on the Internet, and the utility is pretty convenient, the loss of so-called net neutrality would not signal the end to the Information Age. It would definitely reduce e-commerce, and that could be a good thing for brick-mortar businesses.

Maybe it'd be better for our health too, get us off our fat duffs now and then. Maybe cause the reading of actual books w00t.gif




Supposn
AuthorMusician, regarding net neutrality and confidentiality:

Utility enterprises operate as, or similar to monopolies. During president Obama’s administrations’, enterprises engaged in some facets of the internet industry were classified and legally subject to additional regulations applicable to utility enterprises.
There were also confidentiality regulations restricting clients’ confidential information that internet enterprises were permitted to collect or pass on to third parties without their clients’ permissions.

Net neutrality and confidentiality are separate concepts but their regulations common purposes are to shield internet users from abuse. Generally, proponents or opponents of regulating one of the concepts also share a similar opinion regarding both concepts.
President Trump has been (to the extent of presidential power) eliminating or reducing the effects of federal regulations regarding net neutrality or confidentiality.

Respectfully, Supposn

AuthorMusician, I believe reducing net neutrality would be net detrimental to our nation.
Reducing the extent of net neutrality is somewhat likely to increase the costs and decrease the numbers of internet forums (such as America’s Debate) and/or the speed and accessibility of access to them.

It would to some extent reduce the distribution of all sides of political discussions, hinder free speech by reducing available forums. Some of the changes that are being proposed will additionally reduce privacy of those using the internet.

Respectfully, Supposn
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Supposn @ Jul 27 2017, 06:02 AM) *
AuthorMusician, regarding net neutrality and confidentiality:

Utility enterprises operate as, or similar to monopolies. During president Obama’s administrations’, enterprises engaged in some facets of the internet industry were classified and legally subject to additional regulations applicable to utility enterprises.
There were also confidentiality regulations restricting clients’ confidential information that internet enterprises were permitted to collect or pass on to third parties without their clients’ permissions.

Net neutrality and confidentiality are separate concepts but their regulations common purposes are to shield internet users from abuse. Generally, proponents or opponents of regulating one of the concepts also share a similar opinion regarding both concepts.
President Trump has been (to the extent of presidential power) eliminating or reducing the effects of federal regulations regarding net neutrality or confidentiality.

Respectfully, Supposn

AuthorMusician, I believe reducing net neutrality would be net detrimental to our nation.
Reducing the extent of net neutrality is somewhat likely to increase the costs and decrease the numbers of internet forums (such as America’s Debate) and/or the speed and accessibility of access to them.

It would to some extent reduce the distribution of all sides of political discussions, hinder free speech by reducing available forums. Some of the changes that are being proposed will additionally reduce privacy of those using the internet.

Respectfully, Supposn


Makes one wonder how we ever got along before the advent of the WWW, circa 1994. Dependence on the Internet is a perception that isn't true to reality, that stuff that happens beyond the screen. Like so many fads, people have gone overboard on how important it is to be connected to a world-wide unsecured public network.

Keep in mind that building out the Internet was a core task while I worked for MCI, former owner of a big chunk of the Internet backbone (now Verizon). I like using the service and get a lot of entertainment and information from it.

However, I also grew up with public libraries that got connected to college/university libraries along the way. If the Internet were to go away right now, I'd know what to do instead.

That's probably why I'm not all that concerned about so-called net neutrality. If the businesses charging for extra speed demand too much, they'll lose customers. But what about people's perceived need to stay connected? Well, that can change exactly because it is a perceived need, although other perceived needs have persistence -- for example the need for cable TV service. Are you ready for some brain damage?

So what about niche sites like ad.gif? Okay, what about them? Is search engine ranking a part of net neutrality, and if it is, how can we ensure that the ranking is done fairly?

There's where government oversight and regulation is needed. Google has a monopoly on search in reality, although light competition exists. It's like when IBM had a monopoly in business computing, even though plug-compatible competitors were allowed to stay in business -- an example being StorageTek, another of my former employers. Reagan's justice department dropped the anti-monopoly suits against IBM -- that would have meant curtains for StorageTek, except it happened shortly before Unix machines bumped out mainframes and the PC took off. So monopoly became a moot point for IBM. Survival became more important.

That's not happening with Google. If anything, the company is leading the world into what's next regarding search and networked computing. Tightly coupled is how revenue is generated on the Internet -- without that part, Google would have died off long ago. It has no mid-range outfit like Sun Micro breathing down its neck, no e-commerce to bring cheap computing to the masses, no real competition.

Except for Amazon in certain sectors, and there's another situation that needs attention paid to it.

It's as if the whole concept of monopoly has changed in the Information Age, as opposed to what it meant in the Industrial Age. But have the fundamental dynamics changed? I don't think so. The speed of the dynamics has increased tremendously, so they appear different. Monopolies pop up and disappear like bubbles in brew.

Overall, it strikes me that nobody understands what's happening, not us lowly consumers and not the top echelon puppies. It's moving too fast for reflection and changing too often for nailing down. What looks like net neutrality today won't look that way for long? Maybe so, don't know, hope to find out.

Another thing to keep in mind is rediscovery. For example, I've gone back to manually charting guitar arpeggios on graph paper rather than simply printing them out off the Web. The physical effort brings with it a more powerful learning experience. Some writers have gone back to typewriters for a similar reason, but it has more to do with expanding the thinking behind the writing. Wordprocessing is literally too easy. A few have even gone to writing longhand.

Ah well, maybe what all this is leading toward amounts to yet one more attempt to take shortcuts and realizing that they don't exist. Gotta pay your dues and put in the time, eh? Or as it was expressed several decades ago, shaddup and play yer guitar. The Internet can't do that for you.
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.