Net Neutrality Bullshit.

Net Neutrality Bullshit.

The idea goes like this: some companies want to make the Internet like cable TV – if you want to access certain websites you may have to pay extra, and stuff like that. So for example the BIG BOSS company that provides Internet to people might be like: “We have a GREAT package containing Youtube, Wikipedia, Netflix, and this list of websites, for only $9,99 a month.” And if you buy that package then you can either only access those websites and nothing else, or those websites will be prioritized over others.

From Freedom Press website: “When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn’t messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience.

When you use the internet you expect Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked.

In 2015, millions of activists pressured the Federal Communications Commission to adopt historic Net Neutrality rules that keep the internet free and open — allowing you to share and access information of your choosing without interference.

Oh, so wait….Can I use the Internet freely without restrictions? That’s so cool man, except is not at all. Websites are blocked all over the world for all kinds of reasons: copyright, violence, paywalls, etc.. P2P or other kinds of traffic can and is monitored and some get fined for downloading certain content. Apps, browsers, software to access the internet are either behind paywalls or filled with ads and trackers. Your Internet speed depends on your purchasing power – some have fast connections, some super shitty. And so on.

In this super popular video that everyone shares nowadays, a super popular YouTuber explained that this Net Neutrality thing is like water: Imagine if you will be charged for what you use your water for. Like if you drink it, it costs something, if you water your plants it costs something else, and so forth. That would be ridiculous he argues. He says that the Internet is and should remain regarded as a UTILITY, like water. And I agree, it should be like that. Like accessing any website should be regarded the same and not be charged for accessing one site over the other. But these people are so blind it is cringy.

Let’s use the same water example. If the water utility was like the Internet utility (what he implies) then it will be like this: some get better water pressure than others, depending how much they pay for. In some cases, water can only be used to drink, not to water your plants (like you might be able to access some sites, but not others because they are blocked by your Internet Service Provider). Or the same as some internet providers won’t allow you to download or upload on p2p networks (they don’t allow certain kind of traffic). Some will only get a limited amount of water (think of mobile Internet – or other kind – that is DATA limited). They say water is free, but they seldom mention that it is filled with all kinds of chemicals that track your health to sell you toothpaste or beverages or a water hose if they detect that you water your garden a lot. This is the Internet with ads analogy, where your traffic is monitored to sell you stuff, and ads are all over websites. So to complete his analogy, if the Internet was like water today, then I’ll have lower water pressure, my water consumption would be monitored and I would get offers in my postal mailbox based on my water habits, and I’ll have to add in all kinds of filters to filter the chemicals they put in to track my water consumption. One day I might also be accused of storing water because, they say, regardless if water pours through your faucet, it is not your water.

So if you tell me that today’s Internet is free and “neutral” then you are either a fool or a fool.

It is so curious to see people arguing against making the Net like the TV because that sounds so like “communism” ;). This is so anti-capitalism as it could be, yet the ones praising capitalism (the money game) are also the ones pretending to care about this. They only can care if it breaks their business model. Like for example Google and Facebook want for people to access the Net and not only a limited amount of them via subscriptions because they sell ads and user data. For them subscriptions are less important than the amount of people accessing their services.

The Internet is a complete mutant in today’s monetary system game as it grew in this kinda free access manner (though as I said it is completely raped by the money game and not neutral at all), but if the Internet was to follow the money game course and became developed like the TV (and this was normal today), then the same people who argue today for Net Neutrality would argue against it. Like imagine the Net was like the the TV, people would be like: “Of course it must be this way man! Youtube and Google could not function if everyone could access their services for free, are you nuts! This is the power of capitalism: you pay for good services”. And we, the small percentage, would be like: “But man, the Internet should be access-free for all and to any website….we can do that nowadays, we have the possibility.” And then people would look at you like you were a fucking hippie or a communist. Same as we, the ones following TROM-like things, say that “People should not be forced to work because we can automate all jobs + food and basic needs should be free because we are able to do that with the tech and science we have today.” and people look at us like we are nuts.

So all of these talking heads that are so against the Net becoming like the TV, are fucking clueless of what they are talking about. At least those who have a clue should be more honest when talking about the “Net NotSo-Neutrality”.

Don’t get me wrong, of course it is better to have the Net like today rather than a TV-like-model one, but I am sick to hear people saying that today’s Internet is “neutral”. It is not!

Leave a Reply

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Jennifer
Guest
Jennifer
…except water IS monetized here in the U.S. (not sure about other parts of the world). On average the water bill is about $40 per month (depends on how much you use, can be more for a larger household). In addition, here in Los Angeles you cannot consume this water directly from the tap because it is so polluted. Depending on the time of month my water is either brownish or unnaturally blue(from bleach additives) So, on average I spend another $10 a week buying bottled water to cook with and to drink. The money/trade game will soon find a… Read more »
wpDiscuz
Search
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in comments
Search in excerpt
Filter by Custom Post Type
MENU

TIO