Net Neutrality Is Irrelevant

[Zombl337]

The government needs to let Capitalism work, and not try to interfere and control what succeeds and what fails in this country. Fucking money grubbing bastards should be massacred and gutted and hung from their dicks.

[1NarutoMaster]

you do realize that net neutrality is for keeping the internet this way where we can see whatever we want. you yourself said it was state funded so why should businesses have a say in what we are allowed to see? 

[XOmniverse]

@1NarutoMaster The idea was government funded. The infrastructure, networks of computers, etc. were all created by the businesses that operate them. The government did not build a giant network of computers and give it away.

Suppose I were willing to pay for a cheaper internet connection that only allowed access to some sites. Why should you have a say in THAT?

[1NarutoMaster]

@XOmniverse also you could argue that If I wanted the same access we have now, it could drive prices up for the "full" service. and one would have to pay higher prices or settle for less.

[803brando]

the ISPs did not invent the internet. end of story. sir tim berners lee defined the internet when he invented it. look him up for his words.

[sub777666]

The Internet does not need ANY regulation.  The Internet should be kept the way it is.

[Jehendos]

@sub777666 *sarcasm on* yea youre right. child porn for everyone *sarcasm off*

[Ziiiv]

The way I see it is that if you have Net Neutrality, youtube wins since they get to use half the internet's bandwidth for nothing. If you have no Net Neutrality, the ISPs win and potentially are able to censor people, but it would seem to me that the market would solve that as all it takes is one company to keep the status quo and kill the competition.

The best solution I see is to enact legislation forcing ISPs to be transparent as to what they discriminate so they can't censor on a whim.

[itsabomberscope]

Yes a network owner could restrict access because after all , it belongs to them. But a user driven enviroment is much more colourful (english spelling lol) and rich, than a segmented, Corporate, political based head tank. The internet, or more correctly web reflects society. In society there are places and people we dont agree with, and places in the city we dont go. However others do. Whos to tell you or me, which conversation to have, or what street to go down.

.

[itsabomberscope]

...Also

I dont want some anodyne corporate suit , telling me what and how I can access information. We must maintain the right to access bullshit & truth in equal measure.

I see some comments on here saying that because the government owns the internet the argument is irrelevant. The argument is problematic, not irrelevant.

Did freedom become irrelevant for poland in the second world war beacause of hitler? It became the most attractive quality of all.

[naturesoracle]

We are the internet. It is ours! I understand that it is very much a possibility to modify a cable modem to defeat the limitations on bandwidth. There is a copy of 2600 that had details on how to do this but it was so long ago it may be out of date. arstechnica had an article regarding individuals that modified their cable modems MAC address & changed the rate at which they could access the internet and the resulting arrests. This is OUR Internet. We can become independent. Just look at CCC

[generovox]

For everyone who thinks state or fed gov run internet would be free both financially and ideologically, Im sorry, but I see no evidence of this anywhere in time But I would love for someone to help me all I would ask is you show me one government agency that has been successful with longevity and/or any government sponsored initiative that really helps people have more freedom.

IMHO- Those who try to get their hands on trying to control peoples choices/freedom are bad

[generovox]

Aren't people forgetting about a thing called competition? Let's say I join ABC Isp provider... and then I start hearing about how they are limiting or directing access for their users... and I even notice it myself... but then I hear about XYZ Isp provider... I hear that XYZ is free, unrestricted... why, because they want my business... so I switch to the "free-er" provider and they make money... I tell my friends and they joined XYZ too... free market competition wins... not government control

[XOmniverse]

At the risk of sounding cynical, you expect people to grasp basic economics? :)

[Samwise150]

@XOmniverse I completely agree. You are talking about people who think it is unfair that Tickle Me Elmo is so expensive when everyone wants one around Christmas time. Around that time of year you hear on amazon countless people advocating for the government (or amazon) to force prices down.

My point: Few understand even the rudimentary ideas of economics. How can we convince people to vote with their dollars if they don't understand to begin with.

I am just tired of consumers(us) losing.

[johnroshan]

@generovox Though I don't prefer regulations, allowing a profit oriented company to regulate and censor what I see and use is dangerous. Corporations in the past have stooped down to the level of price fixing to maintain their profits. They might even join together to censor certain information that goes against their common interest.

BTW, as the person in the video says, we either bend over to the government or to the corporations. Take your pick.

[Finn001abd]

@generovox The ruling elite want the alternative media to die. All of the large providers will start regulating the net if their allowed to. The best way to go in my opinion is keeping net neutrality.

[3089280288]

@generovox Then XYZ raises their prices.

[mrchacko]

@generovox

Because in most regions YOU DO NOT HAVE COMPETITION. You have one provider of Cable, one provider of DSL (that handles the actual networked part), or you can choose Satellite (laugh).

The high speed internet market is monopolistic in its very nature.

Sure you guys in more rural areas may have competition but right here its cable or slow DSL or dial up.

[1NarutoMaster]

@mrchacko I live in a rural area and its more difficult to get high speed because of trees interrupting satellite signals. do more research and in most urban and suburban there are many choices.

[michaelss7]

@generovox The itnernet is not something that should have competition on how much internet should be disposed. A FREE Internet is needed! Competition on Prices for Internet is good not for what people can see

[JICKo3]

The free market works 90% of the time, BUT

Unlike censorship, Net Neutrality shows no preference. Requests are to be dealt with on a FCFS basis, data is distributed to users on a FIFO basis.

It's not government censorship, it's the a restriction on corporations (who have already been given special privileges by the government) to censor.

NOT irrelevant when companies would otherwise have the right to censor their competition. (So if you use Comcast internet, good luck watching Netflix)

[HWGuyEG]

Internet in Canada is a pain because of the greed of the major companies.

Things are getting slower as they throttle more and more, while not throttling their own services.

Connection speeds are extremely 1-sided(20:1 down/up), unless you use a third-party ISP.

Usage was unlimited, but now there's tiny caps and huge overage fees... monthly costs more too.

Making tons more money, and spending less on infrastructure.

I'd rather have the government in control, it's easier to throw them out.

[CONCUSSION187]

i think its more about control than it is about making money

[dorlack]

control makes money

[micheals1992]

if they did start doing that people would just start building there own networks. i bet theres is loads private networks out there that doesnt have any restrictions on there content if they do restrict everything on the internet they will just end up going bust and a new network will take over

[cerjy]

yap, lets let the corperations that are the lapdogs of the MPAA and RIAA tell us what we can and cannot view. or even better, lets let companys tell us what we can and CANNOT say?

sorry bud you're not very..bright =(

[XOmniverse]

Is there some reason that you think the government is less likely to be assholes about controlling the internet than corporations?

[mrchacko]

@XOmniverse

The point is not to create government control; its to make it illegal for ISPs to filter what content their users get. You're reading into this like its some sort of political issue - when it's not.

I guess let it happen then you'll see the nerds were right.

[XOmniverse]

@mrchacko You do realize that "making something illegal" is, by definition, government control, right?

Of course it is a political issue! The entire issue is about whether a government should interfere in the market place. I'm not sure what definition of political would not include this.

[MaikUniversum]

@cerjy it is easy to compete with corporations, especially in free market. But with a state you can not compete, or you go to jail.

[sinschild07]

Made by the Government, Paid by the Government, ISP's...fuck your rights, you dont have any, you dont own the internet. It's the same with a restaurant, you dont dictate what your customers eat. ISP's that are anti-net neutrality can suck on a solid, "No," from the government. Why should the government let ISP's dictate who uses the government's property? A regular person can pay for a bathroom, but he cant dictate which stalls you can and cannot use.

[travroy]

One word: Cyberterrorism. One significant attack and you'll be asking permission to email your sister.

[buzzybeemarketing]

If the governement is really by the people and for the people? Then why is so much money spent on lobbying congress every year to pass laws that favor a special elite in the corporate world? I guess if democrats totally had their way, everyone would work for free on the web for a few corporations. And if republicans totally had their way, a few corporations would control the entire internet still. Power is power, power over you.

[bluedov69]

Bravo ! Im glad someone said it "it is irrelevant since the government controls through funding

[pixelsword]

Okay, you point is only half valid:

A network may belong to the company, but the land that the cable is laid on or satellite's airwaves belong to the state: If the company has rights because it's "theirs", doesn't the State have the right to dictate terms as well? And since this is a government of the people for the people, if we voice our rights, our terms essentially become the laws that govern out country.

[Morocen]

And I suppose the majority of americans are going to walk down to congress and voice their opinions on this. No they're going to complain and mumble, and eventually deal with it. Sure some people will complain, but not enough.

It's a government for the majority, and the majority don't know enough. But the politicians do, so they fight the battles.

[fagadhi]

Fine, just great... Your video makes people think they're powerless. Well THEY ARE NOT! You ALL have the power to stop this! Create awareness, make everybody around you know that this is happening. Nothing is more powerful than mouth to mouth communication. You will be surprised how effective it will be, even if non of your friends are politicians, CEO's or millionaires. GET THE WORD OUT - BEFORE it's TOO LATE.

[XOmniverse]

That's certainly not my goal. Although I would want people to think that they do not have power via the state.

[fagadhi]

I absolutely agree with you, and thank you for making this known! It's the package you present it in I have a problem with. If people would just know how powerful they are, suppression & control (be it through corporate or government means) would not stand a chance. All we need to do is let it be known that we have the power to control our own lives, beliefs and destinies. The internet as an independent medium is absolutely crucial in this! There is no room for complacency or pessimism.

[hzane]

First it's not the isp but the telco providers, subtle but definite difference. In a nihilistic philosophical way i agree with the opinion in this video. In a pragmatic realistic way however, telco claims they own the internet which is untrue. Verizon has as much claim as Cisco. The desire to regulate based on corporate interest is predicated upon lies and a play for monopolistic control. Government is the only entity capable of preventing such self-serving network policies.

[blackacidlizzard]

I'd add that the "private" side of the "ruling class" will always move against open and "free" environments through the government. In fact... well, there doesn't seem to be a case for even bothering to differentiate between the big companies and government masters. The merger is nearly seamless these days.

I don't see how a censored web could survive competition not stifled by mass violence...

[CraziiDago]

L.O.L.

[KarateKidX]

of course it's irrevelant.

How else could something be so polarized, with both sides relying on demonization of their opponents rather than solid logic and evidence.

[buzzybeemarketing]

It does not matter who has the power to censor and regulate. Most ISP's are small. Larger ISP's like AOL do become corrupt because of power. Keep the internet in small business hands. The only solution is to buy your own fiber optics cable and connect from house house and use wifi local networking. That will keep website operators in charge of costs for running servers. This net neutrality is a ploy to scare people into either running to the government to save them or to the corporations.

[bluedov69]

It is irrelevant and I don't why you have people defending or opposing one way or another. The More powerful ISP's are going to do what they want with the information on the web. I thought we learned with Att and the NSA. I don't even trust wifi or fiber optics. lol

[jackson32]

While it is true that we don't have a free market, there is still a lot of incentive for ISP's not to piss off their customers by limiting access. Meanwhile state agencies have no real incentives other than to increase their budget. They are not equivalent, the state is much worse.

The fact that the internet has gotten this far with ISP's limiting access still a minor issue, is testament to the fact that ISP's have to serve their customers, or people will take their business elsewhere.

[jmaximus9]

You are a duffus, would you want the phone company telling you who you can call? We can take back our government from the NeoCons and pay masters. Laws do matter, even if Bush won't obey them. Obama 2008.

[fedeman2]

that was kind of an apocaliptic conlusion, there. lol.

i gotta say, i don't see the end of liberty with net neutrality. while there is a state, even from a classical liberal perpective, it has the sole duty to "regulate" (for lack o a beter term) the infringement of indiviual freedom. that means that laws should be based on protecting said freedom. that's all net neutrality seems to be, as i understand it.

[Queixoso]

Pt2, just to finish it up:

I agree that the gov sucks man, but we got at least to try doing something...Sitting is not gonna help...

Educating people would help...And thats why the internet is so important...

Its an alternative way of educating people to think by themselves...

Cheers

[Queixoso]

Im not sure if i got the point...Maybe my english wasnt enough...

I think the ideal would be for us to live in a perfect world (lol), where no rules are needed because everybody had a healthy education and do everything in their lives willing to do the best to themselves and to the others...

Unfortunately, thats not quite our case. We live in a wolrd where the money rules...We cant trust the gov, true, but then, what are you suggesting? Shall we just sit and watch them doing their crap?

[hockeygoalie9905]

We have net neutrality now...Of course the point behind what you are saying is irrelevant because you missed the issue...we are going to pay for the service anyway, therefore the fact that ISPs will limit what you see is what the big issue is about...plus if net neutrality is eliminated we will have to pay more for less access to what "we" the people technically own.

[lavagolemking]

That said, it is by net neutrality that you are able to post this video. The government hasn't censored a lot (especially compared to other countries' governments), except rallying to overthrow the government, and some anti-war protests. If net neutrality were not implemented, then only content which is profitable to respective ISPs would be allowed to pass.

[XOmniverse]

Really? Far as I know, my internet has never been restricted in the way you describe despite a lack of net neutrality regulation.

And free speech means no government censorship; it doesn't mean that someone else has to allow you to express yourself with THEIR private property (such as their bandwidth, for example).

[lavagolemking]

It may not be blocked for you, or right now, but without net neutrality someone out there may be restricted from seeing your content, either because the ISP doesn't agree with it or because YouTube, who isn't even on their network, hasn't paid their internet taxes to get the 'premium' privilege for their users, which they'd have to pay everyone for. It's not (to me) about bandwidth limits but companies systematically censoring users' access to pages, and preventing use of competitors' services.

[XOmniverse]

People who think corporations are untrustworthy but don't seem to think that the government is even worse blow my mind. What stops the government from doing all of that?

[lavagolemking]

Simply forbidding companies from restricting free speech (known as net neutrality) would not, in itself, give the government the ability to censor the internet, but little more than setting a precedent. If implemented, businesses would not be able to censor out views they disagree with, but if not, then it simply says nobody can censor the internet. Just because the government has their 'foot in the door' doesn't mean the government itself will censor your free speech.

[godlesspatriot]

Net Neutrality defines fascism. The Freedom to share info is gone.

Just another freedom sacrificed for goodness of the people, right???

STOP SWALLOWING THAT NONSENSE.

FIGHT THE POWER.

FIGHT FOR FREEDOM.

[XOmniverse]

Oh yes, nothing says freedom like government regulation! Mmmm mmm! You're really fighting the power!

[godlesspatriot]

sorry...I meant going AGAINST net neutrality...

the issue gets me so mad that sometimes I don't re-check my comment...hahahaha

*NET NEUTRALITY IS THE GOAL*

gov regulation blows.

[anyusmoon1]

Corporations in bed with government and benefitting from special favors, entitlements and/or legislation favoring them over anyone or any other company is nothing short of CORPORATISM AKA FASCISM.

And YES we allowed and now live with a fascist regime in the US.

Time to take it back and stop democracy, stop fascism and return to the rule of law ie our constitutional republic.

[911truthnc]

How do you see regulations affecting the way access information now? Are porn sites part of the internet? I have to pay for them? Why can't they provide free access? Will I have to pay to access youtube. If I do. Youtube will be left to the elite. I do not see that as being commercially viable for companies. Yet, it might be more about control than money.

[911truthnc]

Your points well taken. I do software engineering. Overture Networks, we build aggregation devices that companies like Verizon use to build their networks.

Ask me, its all an illusion anyway. You think you have open access. How do you know? Because you can upload a video and I can watch? There is much more bandwidth available. Than we the public, the public are using. Companies build their private networks. The internet is pipes.

[911truthnc]

Pipes with access points. You get a trickle of the flow.

[joeyecw]

You're missing the point. Granted, corporations can already smother smaller competition through heavy marketing campaigns, such as the little ads you see right here on Youtube, but losing net neutrality means that the corporations can PHYSICALLY smother alternative sites and competitors by buying all the bandwidth. Once your favorite, non-mainstream websites are loading at the rate of 28.8k--or not at all--then you will see why this issue is "relevant".

[Darganot]

Yet another fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the interwebs.

Ever heard of a bbs???

Check out my video "High Technology" for a bit more info. It's from "BBS: The Documentary".

[XOmniverse]

I used BBSes back in the day.

Where have I misunderstood the nature of the interwebs?

[Darganot]

Using tools like bbses individuals can wrestle control of the networks back form corporations. Yes the whole thing has practically died but it's not about what everyone else is doing, it's about how much each individual contributes to the network (or system or interface or whatever).

We have a mostly passive network here with the web and all so most 'user' contribution happens at a superficial level, like videos on YouTube (i.e. content), so it's hard now to see how users can build a network.

[Boomer1949]

bbses are only available, as far as I understand, through land phone lines. Wouldn't it be much more effective to develop independent access through microwave, or electrical outlets?

[Darganot]

You can access bbses with modern connections (DSL, etc) using a protocol called telnet. Search for "Synchronet bbs list" to see a list of boards with are currently up. There's probably many more around, you just have to find them . ;)

To easily access telnet on windoze just pull up a dos prompt and type in 'telnet'. Then put the address from the list in and you should dial into the board.

There's other ways but this is the easiest.

[LeeGeeGee]

The internet was not created by the government. That's a myth. The internet is simply a merger of government and pre-existing private national networks under a single addressing scheme. The IP addressing scheme was created by someone employed by the government, but that's trivial. One of the private schemes could have been selected alternatively.

[LeeGeeGee]

Why are you calling yourself a "left libertarian?" Left libertarians believe in common ownership of resources. Look it up.

[XOmniverse]

The phrase has multiple meanings, and also includes certain radical market oriented variants of libertarianism as well, such as agorism. Look it up :P

[LeeGeeGee]

Stealing the term from traditional left libertarians. They're going to be upset.

[XOmniverse]

The left was stolen from market-oriented types by statists to begin with.

Traditionally, the left meant revolutionary and anti-authoritarian, which is entirely compatible with property rights.

[LeeGeeGee]

Touche'

[LeeGeeGee]

True, "liberal" was considered left, which at the time referred to laissez-faire liberalism. So contemporary classical liberals are left if you want to use the old terminology. To consider a market anarchist left but a minarchist (classical liberal) to be right is inconsistent.

[XOmniverse]

I'd say they are a little further to the right than a market anarchist, but still left overall.

[LeeGeeGee]

"If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State." Ludwig von Mises

[TruthHidden]

This is one of my favorites. I am glad to see sanity on the issue of control make a comeback. Do you want control by corporate plutocrats or statist aristocrats? Not much of a free choice.

[D4Shawn]

The way I figure it, at least the corporations want to make a profit, and just about everything is profitable. The state (as much as we can personify it) on the other hand, loves to control what people think and see and have access to, and the state always tries to impose it's bizarre and blatantly irrational notions of morality on people by limiting their personal liberties. Ya know?

[D4Shawn]

Anything the state regulates turns to shit. I'll take the lesser (which I think does exist in this case) of two evils. Corporations FTW!

[D4Shawn]

Don't even act like you care about "net neutrality" and the plight of underprivileged internet providers. You're just a whore for Nesquik!

[Moragauth]

Well given that the internet was originally researched off stolen funds, it is to the people it should go; if they want to sell if off to private firms, they should be able to do so. Corporations like AT&T are state-aided behemoths. Neither they nor net neutrality should be kept around.

[Moragauth]

To qualify, they - taxpayers.

[StuartGalore]

Well said.

[chesterandreduction]

how is neutrality state censorship?

[Moragauth]

He explained in the video how the state would be involved. It may sound as if all the state is doing is impartially enforcing certain laws, but it must at any and all stages discriminate in favour of one or another party.

[pyrrho314]

the net is not in corporate hands... they were allowed to expand it by being ISPs... ICANN and the whole trunk structure of the internet is in public hands, capitalists loved it so much they wanted a piece and it helped us and them... now they love it so much they want to change it to something else, something they can control and take over... how stupid is that? Killing the Golden Goose it's called.

the wage of greed is stupidity.

[BurningIssue]

I'm confused as to how you get from state enforced neutrality to the state regulating internet content.

If the state is enforcing neutrality, how would they spin that mandate to regulate content? Wouldn't that be in direct contradiction to their own policy?

[XOmniverse]

Once the state has its foot in the door of being able to tell ISPs how to allocate their bandwidth, all sorts of interesting things can happen.

"We need this bandwidth for military transmissions, for national security" etc

[BurningIssue]

But wouldn't they be violating net neutrality?

[XOmniverse]

You think the state would shirk at breaking its own laws?

[TehBANN3D]

The Net Neutrality bill is so fucking vague, they'd be able to do anything with it. Plus the "neutrality" is not applicable to things that are illegal.

[pyrrho314]

which side? yeah... the side where you get a vote or the side where you don't.

[pyrrho314]

the design of the internet is important, the internet should be able to route around damage... breaking net neutrality is breaking the net up into discrete nets with gates at the borders... governments invented the net, we let companies come in and get rich but not to the point where they BREAK what we made in the first place.

it's amazing how capitalists think they have the right to TAKE OVER anything they take part in. MAKE YOUR OWN NETWORK HOW YOU LIKE, don't break OURS.

[libertyerian]

Can't you just use a different search engine if one limits your access? But I don't know shit about how the internet works.

[BurningIssue]

Short answer, no.

[ChildrenOfValhalla]

I like the way it is, considering my ISP wants me not to use piracy, but they cant do anything about it. At least i think in the hands of the government it will lead to further decay of copyright laws, because that is what i ultimately want.

[eviloatmeal]

... and of course in a free market demand for neutrality would 'create' neutrality.

[XOmniverse]

Absolutely. If only we had a free market.

[eviloatmeal]

Imho it's only a question of motivation! We need an incentive for the glib! ... oh and anyone else who isn't glib as well!

[lordmetroid]

glib is used widely already in different softwares...

[eviloatmeal]

Glib, not to be confused with glibc. But thanks for playing! Come again! :D

Wait... what? This is a game show?

[pyrrho314]

we never would have had a single global internet with a "free market"... there would be no reason for markets to merge.

Before AT&T took over, it refused to connect to smaller phone companies, you might have a phone but not be able to call someone with a different phone company! The monopoly was allowed as a way to get all the networks connected.

The better solution is to standardize the rules for taking part, e.g. with net neutrality.