no more open internet :'( sad day in history

[ljpm]

Yes. What you are saying is definitely a risk and ostensibly the public debate about net neutrality has focused on this. Question. Why should it matter to you as an end user how much Google pays for it's upload? Why should government be involved in mediating this, which is the defacto situation with net neutrality?



Yeah.... well.... I'd love to talk to you about Canadian politics but it would get the thread moved to the pub. For now I guess you can just add this to the list of complaints

Actually what is happening is rather relevant to this discussion. It all regards net neutrality.

 

[Diver0001]

So what does government GAIN by defining the internet as a utility? Let that sink in.

R..

@RayfromTX
@ljpm
@yle

While you're mulling over that, let me give you my answer. Hold on to your hat because this is going to blow your mind. LJPM this is also answering the question "except when..." YLE, it addresses why I think that the end game in net neutrality is executive control over the internet (the Chinese model).

I'm trying to get you guys to think about this yourselves so I'm being a bit cryptic about it, perhaps, so let me explain how I see this.

.....Spoiler alert..... Read this once you think you have it figured out.

Ever since the Bush administration tried to give legal grounding for the NSA's illegal drag-net style spying on the internet the executive and the judiciary have been at odds with one another.

In my opinion net neutrality is a front to redefine ISP's as telecom style providers (a utility) under the 1934 telecommunications act in order to allow for defining internet traffic in the same way as point to point telephony traffic.

Bush tried arguing this case in order to allow for the continuation of "the program" and it led to, among other things, the resignation of the Attorney General when he refused to sign it. Bush had some low level legal adviser at the White House sign the bill in order to give the the veneer of legitimacy but ultimately it isn't (legally) worth the paper it's printed on.

Obama inherited this mess from Bush but Obama, like Bush, decided that he had to continue "the program" of illegal spying in order to keep the **** at shoe level if another major terrorist attack took place. So since Bush the NSA has had no legal ground for doing what it does, but has been allowed to do so because the entire American political apparatus has turned a blind eye.

Enter net neutrality. The 1934 law allows for tapping telephony traffic under some circumstances without a warrant. By using net neutrality to define internet traffic as basically "the same kind of thing" as telephony traffic, which is the key thing defining the internet as a utility does, it allows Obama, behind the scenes and without any transparency, to tie off a legal loose end and give the NSA some grounding in law for the horrible and unethical drag net spying they do.

It did not surprise me in this context that the Netherlands were the first in Europe to do this after the American lead because the Netherlands has been the drooling lap dog of the Americans in Europe for some time and I'm sure the Americans gave them a nice belly rub for making it look like it was an "international" agenda and not just the Americans trying to put out a legal fire surrounding the NSA.

--------------

By the way, I wrote that in main lines when net neutrality first appeared on the radar as well.

Issues of National Security in the USA can be decided at the executive level. If the president decides that censoring a certain opinion is a matter of national security then net neutrality gives him DIRECT control over the internet. It's that simple.

R..

 

[Diver0001]

Ok, I get that part, but why would ISP's want the elimination of net neutrality if it opens the door to litigation.

Profit.

 

[ljpm]

Here is a post I made about 3 years ago that describes the issue from the point of view of someone who works in the industry. Still surprisingly relevant 3 years later. I should have written a book about it when I had the chance

Interesting. I really don't agree with your conclusion that net neutrality is simply forcing the market down a path it would have taken. You said yourself that one mobile operator, vodafone, had blocked VOIP because it conflicted with their core business. What if this happens to a new emerging tech. It conflicts with the ISP dominance so they block it. That stifles the market. There is absolutely no incentive for the market to go down that road. Existing monopolies or oligopolies do not like innovation, at least not as it pertains to new tech.
Look at the Cable television market. 20 years ago the only way to get a good variety and quality of television stations was cable television. About 5-10 years ago television stations started putting their content on their web pages to be freely streamed. Fast forward a few years and we see people cutting cable subscriptions and watching on the internet costing cable companies money. Now we are seeing a requirement of a cable TV subscription to watch content on the internet. The cable companies do not supply or deliver the content provided by the television stations but somehow we have to pay them. They want to force the old model even when they no longer deliver the product.
Do you think the ISP's will be any different?

 

[ljpm]

Profit.

That kind of blows your argument. The ISP's want to eliminate net neutrality for profit copyright issues would cost leave them liable so it can't be copyright issues. It also supports the contention that the ISP's want to be able to control the flow of info at a price.

 

[ljpm]

@RayfromTX
@ljpm


While you're mulling over that, let me give you my answer. Hold on to your hat because this is going to blow your mind. LJPM this is also answering the question "except when..." I'm trying to get you guys to think about this yourselves so I'm being a bit cryptic about it, perhaps.

.....Spoiler alert..... Read this once you think you have it figured out.

Ever since the Bush administration tried to give legal grounding for the NSA's illegal drag-net style spying on the internet the executive and the judiciary have been at odds with one another.

In my opinion net neutrality is a front to redefine ISP's as telecom style providers (a utility) under the 1934 telecommunications act in order to allow for defining internet traffic in the same way as point to point telephony traffic.

Bush tried arguing this case in order to allow for the continuation of "the program" and it led to, among other things, the resignation of the Attorney General when he refused to sign it. Bush had some low level legal adviser at the White House sign the bill in order to give the the veneer of legitimacy but ultimately it isn't (legally) worth the paper it's printed on.

Obama inherited this mess from Bush but Obama, like Bush, decided that he had to continue "the program" of illegal spying in order to keep the **** at shoe level if another major terrorist attack took place. So since Bush the NSA has had no legal ground for doing what it does, but has been allowed to do so because the entire American political apparatus has turned a blind eye.

Enter net neutrality. The 1934 law allows for tapping telephony traffic under some circumstances without a warrant. By using net neutrality to define internet traffic as basically "the same kind of thing" as telephony traffic, which is the key thing defining the internet as a utility does, it allows Obama, behind the scenes and without any transparency, to tie off a legal loose end and give the NSA some grounding in law for the horrible and unethical drag net spying they do.

It did not surprise me in this context that the Netherlands were the first in Europe to do this after the American lead because the Netherlands has been the drooling lap dog of the Americans in Europe for some time and I'm sure the Americans gave them a nice belly rub for making it look like it was an "international" agenda and not just the Americans trying to put out a legal fire surrounding the NSA.

--------------

By the way, I wrote that in main lines when net neutrality first appeared on the radar as well.

R..

I got nothing on this one. I'm not that paranoid about 'my' government. And I don't know enough about the privacy laws in the US.

 

[Diver0001]

That kind of blows your argument. The ISP's want to eliminate net neutrality for profit copyright issues would cost leave them liable so it can't be copyright issues. It also supports the contention that the ISP's want to be able to control the flow of info at a price.

It's not the ISP's who are taking this initiative. Governments want the ISP's out of the legal loop. ISP's appear to be happy to run the risk if they believe that the profits will justify that.

We're talking about millions in fines and potentially an order of magnitude more in profits. The ISP's know how to run their businesses and as I said before the copyright issues can be tackled in a framwork that doesn't have all of the other "ballast" of net neutrality.

That's why ISP's would rather do business on a level playing field.

R..

 

[Diver0001]

Interesting. I really don't agree with your conclusion that net neutrality is simply forcing the market down a path it would have taken. You said yourself that one mobile operator, vodafone, had blocked VOIP because it conflicted with their core business. What if this happens to a new emerging tech. It conflicts with the ISP dominance so they block it. That stifles the market.

Well seen. This risk is clearly evident.

There is absolutely no incentive for the market to go down that road. Existing monopolies or oligopolies do not like innovation, at least not as it pertains to new tech.

You are assuming telcos and ISP's operate like a monopoly. why?

R..

 

[ljpm]

It's not the ISP's who are taking this initiative. Governments want the ISP's out of the legal loop. ISP's appear to be happy to run the risk if they believe that the profits will justify that.

We're talking about millions in fines and potentially an order of magnitude more in profits. The ISP's know how to run their businesses and as I said before the copyright issues can be tackled in a framwork that doesn't have all of the other "ballast" of net neutrality.

That's why ISP's would rather do business on a level playing field.

R..

ah, No.

Who lobbies on net neutrality?

 

[Diver0001]

the link won't load for me.