Debate Forum - Week 4 - Debate Topic: Net Neutrality
Debate partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek
Please visit the debate frequently as we need voters!
Week 3 closed last night and @cheneats pulls off another win, making two in a row! Who is going to step up and take the podium from him? Who knows, but we need another debate to find out. Well done everyone. I will forward the prize as soon as the post pays out. Congratulations @cheneats!
Honourable mention goes to @yulem for the most memorable and pointed statement in the debate:
I share the feelings but feel @cheneats is probably accomplishing more by pissing on the ground than many who are pissing into the wind!
I think that statement sums it up beautifully!
Week 4 debate topic - Net Neutrality
The FCC just made some changes that could impact how we access content and information over the Internet. While these changes impact US customers, it still has an impact to other users around the world. Other jurisdictions are also contemplating net neutrality issues, while some have blocked specific content for years. It may surprise most to realize that the US has been rated as a pervasive jurisdiction in regards to Internet censorship and surveillance, along side other countries like Russia, China and the middle east.
This weeks Debate Forum question:
Will the censorship and surveillance actions of large telecommunication companies and governments impact the average users ability to access the content they desire and curtail our freedoms or are these organizations just shooting themselves in the foot by encouraging further innovation and creativity by the users to create an infrastructure that is out side of the state and corporate control and influence?
I want to thank @skycae for suggesting this topic.
The rules of this debate:
- Keep comments on topic.
- No personal attacks, name calling or yelling.
- Be respectful, thoughtful and articulate with your thoughts and views.
- Participants can ask questions but lets limit the discussion threads to three deep. That means the individual can respond to the question posed and then the thread must stop.
- The post with the highest vote count will win the debate. Highest value will not be used to determine the winner but will naturally reward commenters who make excellent points. That way everyone's vote counts the same when it comes to the final prize. I will break any ties.
- Debate deadline is 10pm MST December 23, 2017. At which point I will then tabulate the results and send the prize to the winner.
- Curators are encourage to vote as well, giving higher percentage upvotes for well thought out and written responses, lower or no vote for anybody who breaks the rules or fails to articulate their position.
- Winner will receive all the SBD that I receive from this post, complements of the curators who are participating and partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek.
- I am the moderator and as such I disqualify myself from winning. My decisions are final and I will keep any steem this post generates. I will not tolerate covert or overt violence in this debate. Please keep it respectful and on topic.
The goal of this contest is to engage the readers with thoughtful debate and to explore ideas that are not commonly made available to the average Jane and Joe. I also want to see if this is a good way to get low steem users participating and being rewarded with steem to help them build influence on this platform. Readers are reminded that all comments are the opinions of those who are posting and as such it is your responsibility to do your own research and make up your own mind on these topics. There is no write or wrong answer. Let us debate this issue with respect, honour, dignity, heart and intelligence.
Honestly, this is one convoluted topic right now. No matter where I look, there are biased accounts and misinformation. I have tried my best to sort through it all, and this is what I think. I have been dubious of both sides of this debate, because it is hard to buy into anything you see plaguing facebook. I did a bit of research, and found some convincing stuff! there are some points and questions I want to make. It may as well fuck people over and that in itself will force innovation. However, in the end, I figure time is what will tell us how this turns out.
It needs to start with a definition: "Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication." -wikipedia. That seems like a good thing to me, but are looks decieving? Now, I am not so good with the legal mumbo jumbo, but it seems that it all revolves around ISPs being classified as title 2 'common carrier' under the telecommunications act. It was placed there in only 2015! What was the internet like before that? There are some interesting things and controversies that went on. Anyways....
First off, what is so good about government regulations in the first place? On the side of abandoning net neutrality, the main arguement I see is that it will open up the 'free market' and allow for small Internet Service Providing companies to flourish, because the old regulations will make it easier for them to do so. Honestly, I can not find what the requirements are for making your own ISP company legally. Physically you need a lot of space and equiptment. Although we may not want to government regulating our internet, is it better to allow the companies and corperations to control our internet access? I think not. However I would like to know more about how the internet functions in places without Net Neutrality, especially in the US before the laws were put in place. Also, this telecommunications act is entirely under the control of the five members of the FCC. The main Pai guy who everyone is talking about actually wants more investigation into the economic implications of abandoning net neutrality, but his words are convoluted. You can find all of the FCC members statements on the issue here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm.
I also figured that I good way to figure out what happens without or with net neutrality is to look at other countries. As we can see on this website : https://www.thisisnetneutrality.org/
China, Russia and the US, among a few others, have abandoned net neutrality. In my mind these are once powerful countries who are in a lot of social regression and revision right now, and they do not pop into my mind when I think "free speech" or "unregulated freedom".
So, on the other hand, if we look at the countries who I would consider progressive, mostly those european ones like sweden and finland, they are for net neutrality. Honestly, we can see that these people (although not as free as we may want), live the happiest lives and innovate the most in modern times. This is good evidence to me that net neutrality is important.
I think the 'economic growth' that getting rid of net neutrality supposedly would create is a lie, because there is little evidence for it that I can find, not that I claim to understand economics whatsofrikin ever. What innovation are we seeing from Russia and China? None that I know of, I wonder why? Honestly, are there even people from Russia and China on Steemit? Are they blocked from accessing such prograssive sites? It is common knowledge that China is fond of internet censorship. Whereas there are lots of Japanese people, people from India and people from South America that I see on here that do have net neutrality! This is actual evidence in my mind, partially conjecture but not just conjecture.
As much as I think having the government regulate shit is lame, having the corperations completely in control seems like even worse. At least the government may have some desire or facade of helping its people, at least that is the original idea lol. Corperations we know serve themselves in a capatilism, its a dog eat dog world for them and they would love to squish competition.
These are my findings, I think at the end of this research I have realized that its more then just hype, that net neutrality is probably very important. I would prefer that internet not be controlled by such companies or by the scheming governments, and we can work towards that with or without net neutrality in the US. A solution may be inevitable now that it is such a public issue around here. Innovation is bound to occur. Maybe everything will go to shit and people who are addicted to the internet will revolt or get out of their houses or maybe they will innovate a way to get around the companies in control.
Whatever the answer is, time will tell!
I've been in the IT industry for over 20 years, so I have a pretty good idea how the internet works. There are large telecommunications companies that own the fiber optic backbones, routers and even server farms for much of the internet. Here in Alberta, the government ran fiber optic all over the province to connect provincial offices, hospitals, libraries, etc. Companies that want to provide local ISP services can connect onto that network as well, but they still need to plug into the Internet somewhere. That usually results in a connection to one of the big telecommunication companies. There are connections between them all, so if one section of the internet goes down, it is designed to reroute traffic through other links. Some of them could be microwave, satellite or other fiber optic connections.
With all that said, those who control the main routes can control the traffic over them if allowed to do so. Do you think that public pressure is enough to convince these multi-national corporations to bow down to their demands or would they engage in a war against one another for dominance of who provides the traffic for the backbone of the internet? It is one thing for people to not really be aware of what is out there, which the North Korea's of the world has done. It is something totally different to have people with access to everything, suddenly be restricted. It is much more difficult to pull back than to expand. Thoughts?
Will the controlling powers affect the common users OR will an alternative infrastructure result?
There is a reason why the vast majority of Internet infrastructure is under the direct control of either corporations and/or governments. (an exception might be the wireless nodes in Cuba) That condition will exist into the future because even if an alternative infrastructure is deployed it will still be owned by someone or something. They will simply replace the current owners. Physical infrastructure like fiber-optic cables, satellites, server farms, etc. is prohibitively expensive and beyond the reach of individuals.
Small, local networks could be assembled by individuals from current technologies but NOT the global network to which we have become addicted. It is unlikely the Steemit interfaces would run well on them.
So the true problem is revealed to be the corporations and the concomitant greed. The "net neutrality" battle has never been about the end users. It has ALWAYS been about maximizing corporate profits. The battle is over WHICH corporation will profit. Regardless of which corporation wins the end consumer will pay the price.
For example you have content providers (Netflix, Amazon, etc) locked in battle against the physical infrastructure owners (Verizon, L3, ATT, etc.) Content providers want infinite bandwidth at zero cost whereas those providing the bandwidth want to deliver the near zero bandwidth at an infinite cost. You see the problem.
Governments declare they exist to protect the consumers from becoming collateral damage in such conflicts, but as we have just seen in the US they sell their protection to the highest bidder.
So those of us in the US need to get ready to bend over. If Netflix looses they will simply pass the costs on to their customers; if Verizon looses they will raise their rates (yes, I know it is regulated by the government) and we still pay. Fact is that the consumers are always the ones to pay for corporate greed.
The only solution is NOT to be a consumer. Few are ready for this.
So are you then suggesting that people need to get ready for the possibility that their access to the internet disappear? If so, what do you mean by not being a consumer? How far does this have to go in order to prepare for this type off scenario?
I'm suggesting that we have no control over things like access to the Internet. If the powers decide that it's not profitable then they will pull the plug. Our ONLY choices are the ones they offer us. They are in complete control.
My definition of consumer is to be one who consumes the choices given to them by the ones in power. To NOT be a consumer means to be INdependent of the choices (scraps) they throw our way. This independence is a continuum so each can land where ever they are comfortable.
What I'm suggesting is that the "net neutrality" discussion is just a smoke screen designed to divert focus from the more import issue of who's actually in control of these things. It is a more subtle part of the LIE or fictional realm.
To be FULLY prepared one needs a life that is independent of the Internet; that means use it to your advantage today but be ready to live without it when the time comes.
Yes censorship will effect our ability to access content and curtail our freedoms. Look no further then China
Image source
Yes and No surveillance actions by large telecommunications companies and governments will shoot themselves in the foot and encourage innovation to work around it.
I'll add that this type of manipulation is already going on with google searches and facebook feeds, etc. Filter bubble. Algorithms are already only showing you what they think you want to see. And like the "No" part of my answer you don't hear to many people talking about it or caring about it.
Do you think that the issue is much like the frog in the pot of water. If the water is hot, the frog will jump out. But if the water is cool, it will say in. Turn up the heat slowly, the frog will eventually die. Do you think they are turning the heat up slowly to try and catch people in the trap? What about those of us who are sensitive and ring the bell to warn people? Or is complacency too strong these days to even worry about it all?
Awesome analogy! I think that sums it up perfectly. Though I do think ringing the bell to warn people can be the spark that sets them on a course to be free. Though I think it really is the Spirit of God that wakes people up and God speaks through people quite often. But once they are woken up they start out as a spiritual baby and have to grow and mature. So we are really just sharing truth looking for those that God is drawing. Those that aren't being drawn may react negatively to the warnings or just ignore them. Just my $0.02
Well, I am on the side of evil starting to consume itself with the elimination of net neutrality. The most I have seen or heard about this topic, aside from this debate, is from my 13 year old son. I don't watch tv, read papers, or listen to radio. I rely on conversations around me, fakebook posts/ discussions, and am learning to navigate steemit. Unsurprisingly, aside from a quick sentance from my brother in law yesterday morning, no one of the adults in my circle are even mentioning this! Which seems perplexing to me eventhough I feel quite ignorant to the topic. As most of us, myself included, are so dependant on the net. I wonder why there us so little about it being discussed!!? I think most people just don't know what to do. They know something is up but are stuck in the 'Could be worse vs. Could be better' mindset, mixed with a good dose of Stockholm Syndrom. Anyways...
Back to the topic at hand-- my son, just said US is in the beginning of going to shit because of this decision. ..... My instincs from that create an image of my leading sentance. Which looks a lot like the picture of the evil thing at the vatican.
Time will tell. My wish is for everyone to have access to the internet not dependent on a utility provider that has power to cut service if/ when they want to. And, that net neutrality and open-source be prevalent. I dream there is a good way dawning. And, that Dreams Come True!!
Let evil keep knawing away at itself. I will get out of the way and tend to my beautiful garden and all of the wiggly critters within. While you go ahead and take care of yourself evil. Thank-you very much :)
If an open source solution was found where not only software was free to use, but hardware as well, would that be a solution that would cause an open source internet? Is this what you are suggesting? I'm very familiar with open source software as my IT career ran from the late 80's through 2007. During that time, open source really took off, with the advent of Linux and even Netscape Navigator bringing the concept to the main stream. The barrier for open source internet would be finding ways to have open source hardware. Perhaps 3d printing may make that a reality sooner rather than later. Are they 3d printing circuit boards yet?
When i think of open source, i really dont have much understanding of the physical technicalities. I connect it more with an underlying attitude opennes, constant improvement, non-competitive, inclusiveness. Aside: yay! I just learned hiw to peruse comments and replies!! Yay 😊
Initially, they might decrease average users access to their desired content and limit our freedoms, but not for long.
Let’s admit it – the smartest people do not work for the large telecommunication companies and the government. All innovation and creativity, including the invention of the Internet and the computer, are from individuals outside of the state and corporations. The state and corporations, as big brothers, are just there to have control and influence over existing established technologies.
When the push comes to shove, the smartest people will rebel and create an infrastructure that is outside of the state and corporate control and influence.
One example is the Steemit platform. Weren't we all the victims of Facebook's censorship and pushing ads right in front of our face based on the information we gave them? Enough is enough. See where we are now. Steemit!
Another example is Beartooth, which provides direct off-grid communications. And I am sure there are going to be more.
I agree that even if there are regulations the internet addicted people of the US wont put up with it or deal well with it long if it really ends up being an issue.
What I hear you suggesting is that this lock down will actually spawn innovation which would allow us to work around the issues, much like what happened with the music industry fighting to shut down Napster and other file sharing platforms to the point where it all went peer-to-peer and is now almost impossible to stop. So you are putting your faith in others to figure it out and work around the issue, much like what steemit is doing to facebook?
Yes. I appreciate the freedom of speech and communication we have today on this platform. God forbid if this is taken away without another alternative, or the grid is completely down, I am prepared to live without it. (I grew up without internet.)
The true security is when I walk in my garden, I see food growing everywhere and I have friends nearby.
I think there is a lot more going on behind the scenes with this. I think it is a way of the government trying to control not only internet access to certain sites, but also certain services for example Cryptocurrencies!!! If they can control what we have access to, the can control cryptocurrency to the masses. Maybe not to the most tech savvy people, but certainly to individuals like myself with no technical knowledge. They tried bad mouthing Bitcoin, that didn't work, they tried shutting it down, that didn't work, they tried regulating it, that didn't work, I think this is the next step, although they haven't said it. Cryptocurrency threatens the main control that the government has over the people...access to financial independence. Just my personal speculation here, I don't have a source to quote. I could be completely wrong, but it certainly is food for thought
Ok, so let me make myself clear as I think this next sentence sums this issue up pretty well:
wow, that is a scary sentence.
This move by government has a major effect on the average user, The internet should be a place of freedom, There shouldn't be restrictions. Most times, only the masses gets to suffer and the targets still find their way around maybe by hacking. Everyone should be allowed freedom on the internet, this will bring a greater influence on the masses while government should find a way of tackling abuse of internet.
I recently shared this video with another minnow when discussing net neutrality I know its not d.Tube but Juice New are super creative when getting their point across. Check it Out and this was 2014 pity they stopped creating #Apathy
wish there was something to debate other than how this is bad for everyone but .gov