Will The Globalists Use New Net Neutrality To Shut Off Access To Alternative News?

[Achilles]

Will The Globalists Use The New Net Neutrality Rules To Shut Off Access To Alternative News Websites?

December 14, 2017 by Michael Snyder

Many are applauding the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality, but I believe that this is a huge mistake. Hopefully the worst case scenarios will not play out, but if they do we could be looking at the end of the Internet as we know it today. We have all become quite accustomed to going anywhere on the Internet that we would like, but thanks to this decision the big Internet service providers could start to turn the Internet into another version of cable television. Websites that are not part of your “Internet package” would either load much slower or would not be accessible at all. Essentially, the big Internet service providers could eventually become “gatekeepers” that would decide what you would and would not be able to see on the Internet. So if they didn’t like the views of a particular website (such as this one), they could simply block access to it and their subscribers would no longer be able to get to it.
A free and open Internet is one of the key tools that we are using to wake people up all over the world, and the globalists have been desperate to find a way to clamp down on us. That is why the FCC’s decision today is so chilling…

In a partisan vote repealing net-neutrality protections, the FCC has lifted restrictions that prevented internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking certain websites or from charging companies and customers more for internet “fast lanes.”
Those so-called fast lanes could mean the difference between a smooth, TV-like experience watching online videos or a frustrating frozen screen — a vital distinction as services like entertainment, news, and education shift to online platforms.

As long as the Internet has existed, Internet service providers have generally treated all websites equally. But now these new rules will give large ISPs unprecedented control over Internet activity. The following comes from Rolling Stone…

The existing regulations, put into place by Pai’s predecessor Tom Wheeler in 2015, codified longstanding Internet practice by explicitly requiring ISPs to treat all Internet traffic equally. In contrast to a cable provider, which can decide exactly what networks or services customers get for their monthly fee, ISPs are forbidden from discriminating among their customers. When you pay your fee to get online, you get everything. But under the new regime, a handful of the most powerful telecommunication companies in the U.S. – Comcast, Verizon, AT&T – will have unlimited freedom to slice and dice the Internet ecology as they please.

Today, nearly 50 million homes in the United States only have access to one high speed Internet provider.
Now those high speed providers will be able to pick winners and losers, and you will not have any control over the decisions that they make. You could choose to go with another provider, but they will probably be engaged in the exact same type of activity as well.
So much of this debate is centered on Internet speed, but to me the greatest danger is the fact that Internet service providers will now be able to block any website that they want…

Under the new rules, called the Restoring Internet Freedom order, ISPs also must disclose any cases in which they prioritize some content, whether its their own or that of a paying partner, over other content. The new order also eliminates an Internet conduct standard meant to prevent ISPs from unreasonable interference with consumer’s access to destinations on the Net.

The big Internet service providers are owned by the globalists.
Could the globalists try to destroy the alternative media by simply blocking their users from ever going to alternative news websites?
I hope that it doesn’t happen, but these new rules open that door.
If you don’t think that this is serious, I would like for you to consider what a Rolling Stone article is saying on the matter…

It gets worse. Because under the new rules (or really, lack of any rules whatsoever), ISPs won’t just be free to charge more for better tiers of access, they will also be free to block access to whatever part of the Internet they feel serves their financial interests. AT&T could cut a deal making Microsoft Bing its default search engine, and block Google entirely. Comcast might decide that it makes no sense to allow Netflix to compete with its own streaming services, and strangle off access to the site. Verizon could decide that Fox News’ reporting is more in line with its corporate interests than CNN or The New York Times.

We should all fight as hard as we can to keep the Internet free and open.
If we don’t, someday we may only be able to access a few thousand websites that have been “pre-approved” by the big Internet service providers.
If I was a company such as Netflix that depends entirely on the large ISPs to deliver their content, I would be scared to death by this decision.
But if we lose Netflix, our society would still be okay.
However, if we lose our ability to communicate with one another over a free and open Internet, the loss to our society would be incalculable.


http://endoftheamericandream.com/arc...-news-websites

[RamRoddoc]

"Net Neutrality Act" is no more neutral than the Affordable Health Act is affordable to the common working citizen, or the N.Y. Safe Act makes New Yorker's safe, or the Patriot Act is to protect true honest to God Patriots.

It's always been about control.

Obutthole achieved what could not be accomplished during the Bush Administration. And we will eventually suffer for that allowance.

[dissimulo]

It will likely result in that over time, but not by design. The media companies are consolidating with the service providers and they will make it easier to access their content and hard to access everyone elses'. There should be no big surprise in this - it is the way everything is trending. Computer companies create their own app stores. At first, it was just a convenient way to get apps. Now, they are closing down your ability to install software from other sources. Eventually, they will make it all but impossible for you to install apps that they haven't approved. The losers will be small groups and individuals who aren't part of a large corporate ecosystem. Everybody else will increasingly have to resort to workarounds like overlay networks that will have the Internet mega-corporations forever playing whack-a-mole.

But, yeah, when only a few companies control access to the Internet and there is no real competition in most markets, you can bet that freedom of speech will suffer. Most of us will probably like it though. You'll hear what you want to hear so that you participate more and provide them with data to harvest. Certain kinds of speech will just be disappeared, increasingly by algorithm, according to the whims of the corporate leaders, who will do whatever the mob demands in order to ensure growth. We were going this direction anyway, but with no real checks and balances, it will probably happen faster.

[Bezukhov]

Mark Zuckerberg has spoken.

‘Internet Service Providers Should Not Be Able To Decide What People Can See Online,’ Says Man Who Decides What People Can See Online
Satire

http://babylonbee.com/news/internet-...an-see-online/

[captlid]

ISPs in America don't block websites and any that try are slapped down hard. Comcast got in trouble years back for blocking torrent service. Now video [youtube, netflix] I can easily see being throttled, because it just takes up so much bandwith and when everyone is using it at the same the ISP has to slow down connections so the most people can access their internet service.

[RamRoddoc]

Feb 26, 2015 NPR

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...y-by-fcc-board

Summarizing "What You Need To Know" about the vote, Eyder wrote for the Two-Way, "Without net neutrality rules, ISPs could theoretically take money from companies like Netflix or Amazon to speed up traffic to their sites."

Thursday's vote comes after Commissioners Michael O'Rielly and Ajut Pai asked that the FCC "immediately release the 332-page Internet regulation plan publicly and allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it."

That request was denied; we'll post the document here when it's available.

Please hold your breath NPR you leftist bastards, I hope you suffocate.



Before the FCC vote back in 2015 to regulate the internet like a utility company they refused to publish before the vote, claiming it's a policy not to publish it unless it passes...

They passed it and I been waiting a couple of years to see all 332 (now up to 400-hearsay) pages of it.


If Obutthole's "Net Neutrality" is such a wondrous regulation of our internet why do they refuse to let us see it?

It's down the list a bit of the things the FCC still refuses to let the people see it.

https://gizmodo.com/a-complete-list-of-things-the-fcc-doesnt-want-you-to-se-1780115061



https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...net-neutrality

One problem with this action is that the Internet does not belong in the same category as telephones and televisions. It is "other": It has its own category. The Internet is the most innovative, pervasive, free, and open form of communication man has ever known. Access to it is more available now than ever before, and an increasing number of people are using it as the primary method for their communications. When used properly, the Internet allows private, anonymous communication in a way that is unrivaled. But beyond that, it is also a marketplace, a research network, an alternative news source, and much, much more. And the Internet is all these things because it grew up largely unhindered by government regulation (read: interference).

With the three-to-two vote of unelected bureaucrats unaccountable to the people, that is changing. It is as sure as can be that Net Neutrality will change the Internet. As the Internet is bogged down in regulation by an agency that has no constitutional authority even to exist, let alone to regulate the Internet, the innovation that birthed and nursed the Net to youthful maturity will be replaced by concerns about compliance with regulations. Instead of answering to the concerns of consumers — as is done in a free market — ISPs (Internet Service Providers — through which a company such as Netflix provides services to Internet users) will begin focusing their attention on lobbying the FCC. The result will be an Internet that has lost its youthful energy and is mired in rules that aren't even known yet.