 |
| https://www.battleforthenet.com/ |
Hi Mom,
In my attempt to strive for some variety, and because I have written about this issue before, here's another installment.
My most relevant post on this issue is here: http://sensedoubt.blogspot.com/2017/05/hey-mom-talking-to-my-mother-684-anti.html.
I have provided links with these graphics, though some of the content is old (2014 for one) but most of it is still relevant and meaningful. And I liked the images, hence the sharing.
So this is a quick share both for the benefit of my own reading, later, and to share with others. This is nothing you would care about, Mom, but you would care that I cared.
For all my readers, do we not want to preserve the Internet for the wilderness it was, may still be, and can continue to be.
So, first a message from FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE and then a good blog from umass.edu with some general information.
Save the fight for Net Neutrality.
 |
| http://leftwardthinking.com/fcc-vs-net-neutrality-1/ |
Key congressional members -- backed by Verizon and Comcast -- are meeting in secret about net neutrality.[1] It's the first frightening step toward a worst-case scenario: Congress outlawing online free speech and allowing internet censorship.
This is an emergency. Stopping lawmakers from passing an anti-net neutrality bill is the single most important thing we can do right now to save the net.
We've put up nine billboards calling out members of Congress who are doing Comcast's bidding, and with your help, we can put up even more.
 |
| http://www.dailytech.com/Netflix+CEO+Warns+of+Possible+Grim+Future+PostNet+Neutrality/article34189.htm |
Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want to end net neutrality so they can charge extra fees and control what we see and do online. For months, FCC Chair Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, has been doing their bidding, pushing to undo the strong Title II rules we helped win in 2015.
Apparently, that's not good enough for Big Cable. Having received massive campaign contributions from Verizon and Comcast, members of the House Commerce Committee are now secretly working to rewrite the law that underpins net neutrality -- a step that would be nearly impossible to reverse.[2]
The response from Americans must be swift and unequivocal: Hands. Off. The internet.
We know the vast majority of Americans -- including 73% of Republicans -- support net neutrality.[3] We just need a fraction of them to get in their congressional members' faces in the next month to send that message loud and clear.
We know we can do it: We've already had more than 300 meetings and events with officeholders around the country. We've already put up nine billboards calling out Big Cable's biggest allies in Congress.
For the internet,
-Tiffiniy at Fight for the Future
P.S. Check out the photos of the billboards that are up so far!
[1] Politico: http://www.politico.com/
[2] OpenSecrets.org: https://www.opensecrets.org/
Fight for the Future works to protect your rights in the digital age.
 |
| https://blogs.umass.edu/Techbytes/2017/06/21/content-providers-and-net-neutrality-a-double-edged-sword/ |
 |
| https://bluefletch.com/blog/net-neutrality/ |
FROM -
https://blogs.umass.edu/Techbytes/2017/06/21/content-providers-and-net-neutrality-a-double-edged-sword/
Net neutrality is the principle that data should be treated equally by internet service providers (ISPs) and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. Those in favor of net neutrality argue that ISPs should not be able to block access to a website run by their competitor or offer “fast lanes” to deliver data more efficiently for a hefty fee. Imagine if Verizon could stop customers from researching about switching to Comcast, or block access to negative press about their business practices. For ISPs, network inequality is a pretty sweet deal. Broadband providers can charge premiums for customers to access existing network-structures, and control the content viewed by subscribers.
Essentially, a lack of network neutrality actively promotes discrimination against competitors and encourages ISPs to deliberately limit high-speed data access. This form of throttling speeds when there are negligible costs of production after initial development is known as “artificial scarcity.” Supply is intentionally restricted which makes the item, internet access, more valuable.
Without net neutrality, internet providers have free-reign over deciding which content reaches their subscribers. In 2014, this issue came to a head when Comcast and other broadband suppliers intentionally restricted the data transmission for Netflix services. To appease customers with a paid subscription who could no longer watch the streaming service, Netflix agreed to pay the broadband companies tens of millions of dollars a year. Evidently, a lack of net neutrality creates a conflict of interest between wireless service providers and content firms like Google, Facebook, and Netflix. These content providers want consumers to have unfettered access to their services. Tolls for network access create barriers for internet-based services which rely on ad-revenue and network traffic.
Despite the threat network neutrality poses to content-centric services many tech companies have been hesitant to vehemently oppose restricting data access. Facebook is investing in creating their own ecosystem. With Facebook as a central hub where you can connect with friends, view businesses, listen to music and play games, the company has little incentive to petition for the free and universal flow of information and Web traffic. From a corporate perspective, every web-interaction would ideally be done through Facebook. In a similar vein, Google has been moving closer and closer to becoming an internet provider themselves. Company initiatives like Google Fiber, Project Fi and Project Loon are the stepping-stone to Google dominating both the web-traffic and web-access businesses. This creates a double-edged sword where unrestricted internet access both helps and harms content-providers. While tech companies do not want restricted access to their sites, they would love to restrict consumer-access to that of their rivals. The burden of protecting a free internet and the unrestricted flow of information therefore lies on consumers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reflect and connect.
Have someone give you a kiss, and tell you that I love you.
I miss you so very much, Mom.
Talk to you tomorrow, Mom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Days ago = ## days ago
- Bloggery committed by chris tower - date - time
NEW (written 1708.27) NOTE on time: I am now in the same time zone as Google! So, when I post at 10:10 a.m. PDT to coincide with the time of your death, Mom, I am now actually posting late, so it's really 1:10 p.m. EDT. But I will continue to use the time stamp of 10:10 a.m. to remember the time of your death, Mom. I know this only matters to me, and to you, Mom.
No comments:
Post a Comment