RE: Debate Forum - Week 4 - Debate Topic: Net Neutrality
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.