ADD TO ANY

Subscribe

Monday, November 27, 2017

NOV 27, 2017 - 11:03 AM ET - A FREE INTERNET.

 QUOTE FOR THIS POST

"Is a nation really free if it doesn't have a free internet?"

Forrest Caricofe

Google search: bout 61,000,000 results (1.06 seconds). 

No results found for "Is a nation really free if it doesn't have a free internet?"





Wayne County, Ohio Courthouse. 


WHAT'S ON MY MIND TODAY

**I don't like to copy and paste, but I believe I have a good reason for it today in 

doing it. I like saying things in my own words, but for most of the following 

articles, I've copied and pasted. I do have a collection of 10 TWEETS and 

COMMENTS and 10 QUOTES, THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS much of which I 

say in my own words and will be published along with WHAT'S ON MY MIND 

TODAY from above later this morning.

"Save the internet!" 

Ryan Cooper

"The Trump administration has a brand-new corporate giveaway: the internet!

President Trump's chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, 

announced last week that his agency was going to repeal the Obama-era rules on 

"net neutrality," which govern the basic structure of the internet. It's a horrible 

idea. But Americans need to start thinking about what to do in the future, after 

Trump is gone. We can restore this rule, sure — but we can also go even farther. 

And we should. For starters, let's levy even stronger regulations and market 

controls to make the internet much, much better than it currently is.

So what is net neutrality? The basic idea is that telecommunications providers 

have to treat all data equally. In keeping with the egalitarian philosophy of the 

World Wide Web, the point is to make the internet an open platform where 

people can communicate freely, and businesses compete on quality and price — 

not by attempting to force consumers one way or another with their market 

power.

Repealing net neutrality would make it possible to provide tiered service — 

where the cheapest internet package would buy you access to, say, Netflix, 

Google, and Facebook and a few other big-time services, but getting the full 

internet would cost more. Independent websites would likely flood onto new 

sub-websites hosted by the Facebooks of the world, where they'd have access to 

a bigger audience but would also be subject to certain exploitation at the hands 

of the platforms.

Additionally, given the fact that telecoms also own large content providers 

(Verizon owns Oath, Comcast owns NBC, and AT&T is attempting to buy Time 

Warner), it's also a guaranteed route for those companies to corral their 

customers into watching content provided by the same company. In a future 

without net neutrality, instead of being able to watch whatever is being produced 

by anyone, you'll either just have to submit to whatever the local monopoly is 

willing to provide, or pay through the nose for a universal service (if they'll even 

deign to provide that). So much for free-market competition!

However, net neutrality is not that strong of a regulation. Indeed, for all the 

well-deserved ruckus over this regulatory rollback, net neutrality is really pretty 

mild. It doesn't interfere with monopolist control over whole regions, or ensure a 

fair playing field for municipal broadband, or stop the platform monopolies from 

effectively privatizing the entire World Wide Web, or stop vertical integration of 

telecoms with content producers.

So here's a sketch of what can be done to improve things, after we bring back net 

neutrality.

First, ban vertical integration. As my colleague Jeff Spross argues, the Trump 

Department of Justice lawsuit against the proposed AT&T merger, while probably 

driven by Trump's bizarre anti-CNN animus, actually makes a lot of sense and 

should be supported. Vertical integration of communication and content is 

unjustifiable, highly prone to abuse, and should be banned permanently.

Second, bring in a new rule: local loop unbundling. This regulation — which is the 

standard in most places outside the United States — mandates that companies 

have to give their competitors access to the wires that hook up each individual 

connection to the local network trunk. That way you can have competition 

without start-up competitors having to build colossally expensive parallel 

networks to millions of homes — which realistically they aren't going to do. 

(Such a regulation was actually part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but 

the Supreme Court held that it didn't apply to cable internet, and so that part of 

the law is mostly a dead letter.) Studies demonstrate that other countries with 

local loop unbundling have cheaper and faster internet — indeed, with reasonably 

vigorous competition, net neutrality would be substantially less necessary.

Third, break up the big telecoms. Now, some level of local dominance is probably 

inevitable, because big internet pipes (like any major communication 

infrastructure), tends toward a natural monopoly. But at least we can keep 

companies from monopolizing whole multi-state regions — and with local loop 

unbundling, there will still be competition. Meanwhile, we can protect public 

options for the internet, in case cities or states want to set up their own internet 

service — forbidding stuff like the big telecoms running to their paid-up stooges 

in the North Carolina state legislature to protect themselves from competitive 

municipal broadband.

Fourth, break up and regulate the platform monopolies. For starters, Google 

should be forced to divest DoubleClick and YouTube, and placed under common 

carriage rules to stop it from abusing its search monopoly; Facebook should be 

forced to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, and its Facebook Messenger placed 

under interoperability rules so that it will work with other chat programs.

With a bit of reform and sustained attention, we can make American internet at 

least as cheap, fast, and reliable as it is in Europe or South Korea. With a bit of 

spending, we could wire up even the most remote rural communities as well. We 

just have to give it the old college try."

http://theweek.com/articles/739142/save-internet.

Ryan Cooper is doing a little wishful thinking here when he says that Google 

should "divest itself of DoubleClick and YouTube" and that Mark Z's "Facebook 

should be forced to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, and its Facebook Messenger 

placed under interoperability rules so that it will work with other chat programs."

It's not going to happen.

What is the internet: "The Internet is the global system of interconnected 

computer networks that use the Internet protocol suite to link devices 

worldwide." Wikipedia. 

Who invented the internet?

"Dec 18, 2013 - ARPANET adopted TCP/IP on January 1, 1983, and from there 

researchers began to assemble the “network of networks” that became the 

modern Internet. The online world then took on a more recognizable form in 

1990, when computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web."

BY EVAN ANDREWS. www.history.com/news/ask-history/who-invented-the-

internet.

I know some of you thought that Al Gore invented the internet, but he didn't.

He did receive the Nobel Prize for making the world aware of Global Warming 

and he was also responsible for that "Hanging Chad" event in Florida in the 2000 

presidential election in which President George Bush was elected. 

I voted for and I like President Trump, but I don't like what he is apart of now,

"The Trump administration has a brand-new corporate giveaway: the internet!

President Trump's chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, 

announced last week that his agency was going to repeal the Obama-era rules on 

"net neutrality," which govern the basic structure of the internet."

What can you and I do? Contact our representatives and congressmen in 

Congress and complain loudly through a telephone conversation, email or an old 

fashioned letter. 

Bottom line. The United States is a nation of free people and we should have the 

right to a free internet. It's related, I believe, to" The First Amendment 

(Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making 

any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of 

religion, or abridging the freedom of speech." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.  

Freedom of speech underlined. 





Copyright ©2017 forrestcaricofe.com All Rights Reserved

No comments:

Post a Comment

I like friendly people of all races and cultures.