Net Neutrality is a Fancy Term for Internet Socialism

Townhall.com ^ | May 18, 2018 | Marina Medvin

[Hostage]

The first workable prototype of the Internet came in the late 1960s with the creation of ARPANET, or the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.

This much I know, the original internet was created by DARPA engineers and computer scientists using a packet switching scheme to allow multiple computers to communicate on a single network.

It was abandoned for further development by DARPA because it was determined that it could never be made secure. It then fell to academic institutions like MIT and CalTech who developed it further. It was never considered as commercially viable. It wasn’t until Netscape (backed by CIA-funded Oracle) showed its appeal that spurred Gates III at Microsoft to go full bore with Internet Explorer.

Prior to the internet, there were BB chat rooms using dial-up transmission, horribly slow, much too slow for any large-scale commercial utility. Internet packet switching also had transmission over telephone lines.

The internet is simply a set of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols known as TCP/IP. When we access the internet meaning we sign on and start receiving and transmitting protocols, we are routed in myriad ways to other computers and pass through to yet other computers. The government doesn’t own much of the backbone but via eminent domain acquired much of the dark fiber abandoned by companies that went out of business after so much fiber had been laid that it was said there were more than a hundred years of fiber expansion already laid out, hence called ‘dark fiber’. Who owns it? If the company that laid it went out of business and left it in the ground under city streets, and no one paid a city or town space fees for maintaining the fiber cable housing, it follows the city could lease it or sell it as abandoned property.

My view is it soon won’t matter who owns the physical lines of internet packet switching as fast wireless internet emerges as the dominant means of delivering internet broadband. Where that leaves NN I have no idea but I am not always trusting corporations to give me the best deal and I always expect them to try and corner the market for themselves by excluding all others (’marked territories’). Comcast did that in one section of my city by pulling fiber and causing all fiber competitors to be shut out because the City would only approve only internet company to pull wire, and Comcast was first. That makes Comcast a local monopoly in certain parts of the city. Wireless internet will disrupt them.

[Impy]

I hope no net neut. doesn’t mean sites like FR getting slowed down.

[lizma2]

“Net Neutrality = Internet Freedom.”

NO! It will eventually mean government control of the net. All it will become is propaganda. Free speech verboten. We are already starting to see it on certain sites.

Do some research on the gov and FM radio and cell phones. The biggest donors get their way.

[Hostage]

Not sure I follow how wireless may get sued for slowing other broadband networks because wireless microwave broadband forms it’s own backbone although it can interface with other broadband exchanges, and it serves the last mile. It’s extremely fast and scalable. Fiber is not scalable, it has limits.

I canceled my Netflix account because I rarely watch movies anymore and because Susan Rice joined their Board. When asked why I was canceling, I wrote in the ‘Other’ field, “Susan Rice”.

If Susan Rice is for NN, then I’m agin it.

The climb in gas tax adjusted for inflation is not over 5-fold. Consumers are pretty good at holding government tax creep at bay.

My contention is that corporations can take over the internet development, eat each other and suffer loss of competition. The evolution to a Ma Bell internet is to be avoided. Without anti-trust and government regulation, the internet evolution can lead towards monopoly. For me, I’d like to see some sort of hybrid of public-private development. Have to think through the dynamics as a public alternative can keep private innovators at the top of their game. If on the other hand, private corps think they’ve got it all sewn up, that’s when the Ma Bell culture sets in. Corporate monopolies can be just as bad as government bureaucracies. Or, corporate collusion can take hold where they each of the big players divide up the spoils. With the breakup of Ma Bell, ATT and the RBOCS along with MCI, Sprint, and others slammed consumers constantly by luring them in with teaser rates followed by slamming in extortionary rates.

So sorry, but I am not all that trusting of corporate players. But I trust less those democrats pushing NN as some sort of campaign issue. That stinks and I don’t know how to counter it.

[editor-surveyor]

.
“Net neutrality” could end the accessible internet, and that is exactly what they are trying to do.

The net is making news flow freely, and running leftist news media out of business.

With net neutrality, nobody is going to be willing to invest in communication infrastructure, since they won’t be able to control the use of their investment.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Net neutrality will be the end of the internet.

All you gimmie something for nothing socialists need to live in your own private island.
.

[lizma2]

My mom had dial up till last November!!!She was fine with it. Now she has to pay a big chunk of change more.

Gas tax... I’m not sure about your assertion. Live in MD and they slowly instituted a gradual gas tax that’s huge. (I get my gas in VA)

I remember when I was a little kidlet, gas was 32 cents a gallon. Now I’m curious. How much of the current price is taxes compared to the gas tax in the 70’s. I’d say a major chunk.

Think about this. Got my graduate school degree before government started The Guaranteed Student Loan and I ended up about $25,000 in debt. 30 years later after the fed took it over kids in my majors are in major debt....average $400,000!!!

Regan was right! Lordy I loved that guy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

[babble-on]

wrong.

[SharpRightTurn]

Thanks for posting. One of the more straight forward and succinct articles on “net neutrality” I’ve seen.

[Caipirabob]

Toss it the hell out along with anyone or any company that promotes it.

[Henry Hnyellar]

You are obviously confused if you think the Internet is owned by all of us. Collectivism and conservatives don’t mix.

[palmer]

wireless microwave broadband forms it’s own backbone

Wireless doesn't have a backbone and fixed sized connections to end users. It's all backbone. Thus when someone streams, the backbone fills and the backbone is more limited than fiber. FIber can do 200 Gb, whereas 5G will do about 10 Gb. Fiber is scaling as well as wireless over time. Right now providers have to throttle streaming video on 3G and some 4G.

If they throttle the "neutrality" lawyers will be ready to pounce and sue and make money. NN was never about anything more than employment for Democrat party lawyers.

The evolution to a Ma Bell internet is to be avoided. Without anti-trust and government regulation, the internet evolution can lead towards monopoly.

Ma Bell was a government-protected monopoly, and a pretty good example of why we needed less regulation and less government. On the flip side, Ma Bell invented the transistor and that led to everything we have today. So having that monopoly was not all bad.

For me, I’d like to see some sort of hybrid of public-private development. Have to think through the dynamics as a public alternative can keep private innovators at the top of their game.

Yeah, but no. The public side is already there with tons of NSF money, DARPA money and other gov R&D money to create new internet technology mainly at universities where it makes sense to do that kind of research. Government cannot commercialize and cannot "keep private innovators at the top of their game", at least not any governments I am aware of.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Go back to Napa Nancy!
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Right on in all respects!

Thanks for that excellent post!

[Hostage]

The original internet and its packet switching technology is owned by the taxpayer,

The internet is a consortium of computer relay equipment that is both private and public.

If corporations think they can corner the market on technology that the taxpayer funded the development of, they must suffer the consequences of their wrong actions by subjection to regulation.

I do not want Comcast and Centurylink to monopolize the internet in my region period.

I believe now there are two bad choices being pushed, Net Neutrality and Corporate dominance. Government control of corporations is also known as fascism. Comcast, Centurylink, Sprint, Verison are all vying for their slice of the pie under government auspices, i.e. fascism.

Microwave broadband, fortunately, bypasses all of the above. It is also easy to install. I predict the oligarchy will do their damnedest to shut down the growth of microwave broadband on any pretext because the microwave is a threat to their takeover of the internet. They will surely erect barriers to entry, false barriers, political and policy barriers.

What I am confused about is how to counter Net Neutrality arguments. It's not enough to cry socialism. There is a lot of history of telecommunications giants controlling markets and fleecing consumers. Net neutrality is not what it says it is, it is a ruse to allow the corporate oligarchs to be tied to the political ruling class to control thought, speech, content, the new dominant liar media. But that's not a winning argument to consumers who can't follow what's happening. Something better, simpler to understand, hits at home, is needed to wake consumers up.

I see it as two bad choices pushed on consumers 1) corporate oligarchies and 2) Net Neutrality. The way out of the trap is a faster easier to install method of microwave broadband. But oligarchs can buy these upstarts out.

At some point, the telecoms will need to be regulated but Net Neutrality is the wrong framework. What the democrats traditionally do is to act as masters to corporate interests. They take a cut and give exclusivity of markets to preferred corporate interests. Comcast, Verizon, Centurylink, Sprint and other former RBOCs and offshoots will end up controlling internet regions and support democrats who will protect their fiefdoms under some false banner like Net Neutrality. What is needed is a better framework than Net Neutrality and I don't see the White House or the GOP Congress laying one out, nor can I see yet what it might look like.

When Ma Bell was broken up it was chopped up into RBOCs, the 'Baby Bells', Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, Pacific Telesis, Southwestern Bell, US West, but they merged or bought each other out to corner markets, preserve their slice of the pie. It's what they do.

Sorry for the poor quality snapshot. The point is our internet will be controlled by an oligarchy with democrats acting as masters or protectors of the oligarchs over time. That's where we are headed.

My confusion is I don't know how consumers can counter it except to point out that microwave broadband can overcome the democrat fascist play (recall fascists control production, socialists control both production and means of production). But the oligarchs can buy up the microwave broadbanders and by doing so consolidate their monopoly over the internet. That's where it's heading. Net Neutrality appears to be the same old democrat trick of pitting consumers against corporate oligarchs with the democrat stepping in to save the day by making deceptive policy to rein in these corporate giants. The result will be RBOC type control of the internet with democrats as the masters or puppets of policy.

And there is no need for this.

Data Centers, broadband backbone, fast internet, continuing innovation, low barriers to entry, all are possible without the new RBOC takeover and without Net Neutrality.

One idea to stop the progression towards democrat control of the internet (Net Neutrality reins on corporate oligarchs) is to have laws in place that allow smaller internet companies to always be able to access internet exchange points at regulated rates that are never restrictive and are reduced giving a more level playing field, AND to restrict via anti-trust legislation the oligarchs from acquiring disruptive technology and startups for the purpose of removing competitive threats. Corporate giants can use new tech, they just can't buy out competitors who are threats without government approval. These ideas are not complete and they a riddled with conflicts and weaknesses. Much work needs to be done.

[Hostage]

Sorry, post #35 was meant for Henry Hnyellar.

[Hostage]

> “Wireless doesn’t have a backbone ...”

You might want to check that. Backbone as the relay of broadband digital information is what microwave transceivers do. They can and do transmit large bandwidth over large distances at extreme speed with better reliability and lower latency.

Here is one example:

https://www.startouch.com

Such broadband transmitters feed from and to data centers and internet exchange points. They do not transmit or upload from end users. They are backbone to internet providers.

Microwave Broadband is SUPERIOR to fiber optic in all respects:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/5-reasons-why-fixed-wireless-better-than-fiber-optic-business-meyer

See #35.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3656304/posts?page=35#35

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Private companies aren’t restrained by the first amendment anyway, only the government is.

That is explicit in the text. However, IMHO you have to allow for the possibility of privatized tyranny - we don’t want the government systematically allowing thugs to do what the government itself is not allowed to do.

<sarcasm>Not that that would ever happen in America . . .</sarcasm>

That could only happen in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or some other Obamanation.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I am not all that trusting of corporate players. But I trust less those democrats pushing NN as some sort of campaign issue.

Socialists are cynical about society, and naive about government.

Conservatives are skeptical about government, and also skeptical about society (else they would reject the very idea of government).

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

[mewzilla]

Obamacare for the internet.