Obama administration moves to virtually kill the internet?

WASHINGTON — The principle that all Internet content should be treated equally as it flows through cables and pipes to consumers looks all but dead.

The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers.

The proposed changes would affect what is known as net neutrality — the idea that no providers of legal Internet content should face discrimination in providing offerings to consumers, and that users should have equal access to see any legal content they choose.

F.C.C. to Abandon Net Nuetrality Rules

Well, if you really think about it, it's not as outlandish as it might seem at first. And really, like everything else, what really makes it possible is the people will probably not complain much. TPTB are succeeding in getting the public obsessed with those ridiculous "smartphones". The popularity of those devices is really hurting the internet. People are mindlessly texting their friends and acquaintances and not using the resources the internet provides as much.

If this continues, it's highly likely the majority of people wouldn't miss the internet and thus, wouldn't complain. These phones and tablets are useful in their own way but they just might be a kind of trojan horse. TPTB have made it more than clear that they're not happy about people sitting in front of a stationary computer instead of getting out and doing stuff.

originally posted by: luciddream
This is happening in many countries, probably not Obama's master plan, but part of the global agenda.

First comes monitoring, then follows restriction(where most of us are), then comes the hammer.

But on a lighter note, the EU supreme justice court declared the 8th of april that the EU directive of ISPs needing to store data on their users is null and void.

In my country it raised hell as pretty much all ISPs went out and said they are now deleting everything, while the police themselves file charges against them to stop them from deleting the logs, lol.

originally posted by: luciddream
This is happening in many countries, probably not Obama's master plan, but part of the global agenda.

First comes monitoring, then follows restriction(where most of us are), then comes the hammer.

Actually, virtually developed nation other than the five eyes group have become more liberal with internet policies and many are going as far as to write net neutrality into their national constitutions.

originally posted by: Krystian
So how exactly will this work? A company such as an Amazon will have to pay Comcast or ATT a fee in order to have faster load times than say a competitor? Will the end user then have to subscribe or enroll into specific web sites of choice similar to if I want HBO or Showtime?

Eventually, yes and yes.

The end goal of the ISP is to charge each website for preferential access to a website. They do this by putting packets for that website ahead in the que on the server, if your packets are at a low enough priority they never load or take a very long time to load. When the major users of bandwidth like Netflix and Youtube all sign up it basically means no one elses information goes through. If everyone eventually pays extra for extra load time, we're back to the situation of today and they can make yet another pricing tier to bump certain corporations above that.

The end result is that the ISP's want to charge not just for internet service but for access to a specific server. To use a driving example it would be like entering a system of toll roads for a fee, but then paying an additional fee to go anywhere. You only paid for access not to arrive at a destination.

Then on the individual user side of things they want to do something similar. They want to let you pay for a certain speed tier like now, but then make you pick which websites you want to have access to. Anything not on the list comes at a slower speed if it comes at all. So you pay say $100/month for access to a 25 mb connection, but then you pay an additional $5 for Google, $15 for Netflix, $5 for CNN, $8 for Fox, and so on.

This will kill every website not belonging to a major corporation.

This used to be expressly illegal however by overturning Net Neutrality this is what the ISP's will do. How do we know this is what they'll do? They're already doing it to Netflix and they went to court with the FCC and used this as their entire case saying they should be allowed to.

The ISP's when criticized for this are arguing that competition will happen and keep everyone honest. The problem is most ISP's act as monopolies or rarely duopolies. It's not the days where anyone could start up a dial up internet service anymore. Instead you need access to the backbone fiber network and the currently existing ISP's control that because they were given it by the government in the late 90's.

originally posted by: Sk8ergrl
I believe that the internet was designed from alien technology. The greys want to know about everyone so what's the best way? Yep the internet a gateway to interstellar information which sends our human information to any beings. And yes aliens do use the internet but not the way we use it.

I almost, if possibly never, have just outright blasted a comment here...but what!? The fundamental principals of the internet, and the protocols it runs on, are not alien, they are not some super complicated series of systems. Maybe to those outside of the industry, but otherwise no.

There is no EMP, the internet is not self aware. Shoot, I wish the internet would EMP people threatening it. It would make my job a lot easier Now you could make arguments that the massive internet use and social media gives it a sense of awareness - nothing escapes the nets these days afterall, but it is not the fantastical creation you make it to be.

In regards to the OP - I'm confused at what changed. The FCC's original Net Neutrality ensured that everything was treated fairly. The Courts overruled it, stating that their wording overreached their authority. The FCC was trying to rewrite it to regain Net Neutrality. What changed in their process to try to support the business model they originally wrote the rule to prevent?

originally posted by: UnmitigatedDisaster
In regards to the OP - I'm confused at what changed. The FCC's original Net Neutrality ensured that everything was treated fairly. The Courts overruled it, stating that their wording overreached their authority. The FCC was trying to rewrite it to regain Net Neutrality. What changed in their process to try to support the business model they originally wrote the rule to prevent?

Lobbyists and billions of dollars from the ISPs, RIAA, and MPAA.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I think you make an excellent point. The latest Windows is setup like a smart phone.

I was born in 1983 and have been seen the evolution of computers in my lifetime. I remember the different operating system good old MS DOS, DOS shell, ect. I am fortunate to have used both MAC and PCs and Unix operating systems and that taught me a lot about computers and the internet. I completely agree that the smartphone geared internet is a dumbed down version of the what is a great thing for the world. Instead of an information sharing medium, it has become a social web geared to social activities instead of an encyclopedia of information. With the latest Windows OS being what it is I have to agree that our internet is being diluted.

The younger generation may be able personalize their smart phone and their plethora of social media websites but most would be unable to operate the computers I used in elementary school.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I think you make an excellent point. The latest Windows is setup like a smart phone.

I got a new laptop recently, it came with windows 8. I could write a list of what annoys me about it, but my #1 peeve was advertising built into the operating system. My #2 was that it tries to configure itself for a "social media experience". Sadly, I have to use a 64 bit OS, and it needs to be Windows for the software I use so I use Windows 7 on it. Otherwise it would be Linux like my other laptop.

They have already begun to tease the minds of the ignorant by claiming the need to block "racism and hate speech."

a reply to: yamammasamonkey

That is so true!!!

And the dumb masses will tell you if you don't agree then you are a racist.

It is amazing how easy it is to manipulate feeble minds.

a reply to: Silicis n Volvo

Of course we'll sit back and let it happen. Humanity sits back and let's everything under the sun happen. It's beyond frightening the ignorance, the brainwashing.....

a reply to: jrod

And those same people claim to be defenders of free speech. You cannot have both freedom and protection, protection requires restraint. Freedom means that something bad can happen to you, like terrorists hijacking your airline, or someone going on a shooting rampage.

a reply to: Aazadan

And situations like that can be minimized with free men and women who are aware of their surroundings and the situation in front of them.

I feel like the smart phone/social media era has made so many detached from the world around them and more focused on the virtual world presented to them in their palms.

We will let it happen as long as there is bread and circuses.

a reply to: MRuss

Becaue it's "for our own good"...

originally posted by: UnmitigatedDisaster
In regards to the OP - I'm confused at what changed. The FCC's original Net Neutrality ensured that everything was treated fairly. The Courts overruled it, stating that their wording overreached their authority. The FCC was trying to rewrite it to regain Net Neutrality. What changed in their process to try to support the business model they originally wrote the rule to prevent?

There was an issue over whether the ISP's were "common carriers" like a utility company providing electricity or water. They just distribute whatever is needed, they don't create, and thus had to have fixed rates.

The ISP's like to see themselves as service companies like airlines, where they could charge whatever pricing scheme they liked. Their "portals" are the equivalent of the airlines "hub network".

Then the ISP's can double bill everyone; be able to charge Youtube or Google extra for guaranteed quality of video across their network, and then be able to charge customers for different tiers of service: email + web browsing = $50, email + web browsing + video = $100, premium websites like Google, Youtube and Facebook are another $25

I see a few people giving the government the benefit of the doubt with this. Taking a "glass-half-full" attitude, which is fine until the government knocks the glass out of your hand. I'd rather keep both hands on it so that doesn't happen, and we need to have that attitude with the internet. No more of this incremental chipping away BS. It worked for them with regard to various Constitutional amendments, it will work with this. No complacency.

What a big mess.

[img]http://s04.flagcounter.com/mini/kfoW/bg_FFFFFF/txt_DEDEDE/border_F7F7F7/flags_1.jpg[/img

a reply to: freakjive

When an administration and POTUS have been installed to bring the U.S. into the folds of socialism/communism and you have a complete fail on your hands you have to do something and removing the ability for people to communicate in mass numbers would seem a logical move.

I would think the next move if eliminating the internet fails (like everything else TPTB have done) may be martial law, they can't give up just because they chose a moron to lead there charge.