Ah, net neutrality! What about it did not write. As already mentioned, the idea in essence is that every user has the right to Internet access without filtering software provider. If this ugly provider will try to arrange such a filter, passing some data packets and blocking the way for others, net neutrality will rush to the aid and say to him: "But-but, do not spoil, we have a right to unfiltered Internet!"
In addition, it is enshrined in law in 2015 is small (only 300+ pages) decision of the FCC that all transmitting packets providers, no right to sort them depending on the source, the recipient, and (especially) content. All of them may not block legal content, and speed up or slow down the flow of data, and to give specific content priority right of passage through their network for a fee.
Unfortunately, as mentioned in the beginning of the article, the FCC decided to reverse this law and to throw away those 300 pages, which were carefully prepared with laurels lawyers. All this of course, for the sake of private interests in connivance capitalism. With unpredictable consequences.
Needless to say the Internet will never be the same. Once neutrality is repealed, ISPs will give vent to his basest instincts and let slip the dogs of capitalism on cute kittens free online. The end of small sites, blogs, activists, Amateur video and freedom of speech!
But fear not, the mass death of kittens cyber neutrality will not remain unanswered. All the soldiers of freedom of speech rose up as one man, from a blog to the media, expressing alarm and outrage, no pasaran, etc. All this inevitably leads to confusing articles (such as those published by the newspaper "Le Monde"), which represent a preposterous pile of nonsense.
It is worth noting that now all the conditions to eternal fighters against capitalism rose to the battle and went on their little ponies to storm the strongholds of evil and injustice, all know that online channels should be neutral! Everyone knows that until recently, all was good only thanks to the governments and carefully crafted legislation. Everyone knows that if you allow the operators to do what they want, there will be a strong law (i.e. the law of the jungle), that ordinary users will no longer have access to the entire Internet that small sites will become unavailable, and that everything is very bad.
Everyone knows that large enterprises like Facebook, Google, Netflix and Youtube (both of them accounted for 54% of traffic) and other publicly spoke out in defense of net neutrality only in the interests of ordinary users. How could it be otherwise!
Despite the fact that from the same Facebook has recently been quite ambiguous position on this issue (the valiant soldiers of neutrality about this completely forgot).
In addition, economic studies have confirmed the decline of investment ($3.6 billion less in 2016) after the adoption of the law on "net neutrality" in 2015.
The provider really the question may arise: why introduce innovation if it is unable to differentiate the offer and to adapt to the current use of its channels. In any case, the soldier of net neutrality don't care about the economy, because we are talking about the principles the Internet should be neutral, just so and not otherwise. This "fundamental principle" as foaming at the mouth yelling "Le Monde".Only here until 2015 there was no such thing in principle, but for some reason everything worked fine.
The thing is that this "fundamental principle" actually was the result of another capitalist conspiracy between the us government and big content providers (so-so, and about whom there can be a speech?), who are not eager to sign expensive contracts with providers (those, incidentally, also for the most part are monopolies because of previous legislative exemptions).
Begin to understand the picture?
One February morning in 2015, the Obama administration woke up in a cold sweat at the thought that Comcast (one of the main American providers) may allow certain packets priority over others. Nothing, of course not, but who knows... Besides, it was impossible to miss the chance to take beautiful law. All packets should be equal from birth.
This, of course, completely stupid idea, because providers haven't done this in 2014, because if one of them would have done so, customers might defect to competitors.
But if there are no competitors, is not it better to try to understand the reasons for such a situation and try to fix it, not to impose additional restrictions? (Especially in the USA monopoly — the lot not of the Federal communications Commission and Federal trade Commission).
In the end, if the offer is becoming more diverse, be a competitor of the status quo: in this case, to provide the user with access to the Internet in different ways. Cable is not the only option: fibre, 5G, telephone and electricity, satellite, etc., Nothing prevents to make here variety.
In practice, the rules of net neutrality have created the conditions for a lack of innovation, while renouncing them will allow you to return to the good old days when providers had their own websites where they offered a range of services (unnecessary boom, but demand more than a mere consumer).
In other words, adoption of net neutrality meant a far-fetched solution to the problem, not this: to correct the situation with local monopolies (they are provided by local law) national regulation, which only undermines investment, completely idiotic from an economic point of view. But since it came from the Obama administration, so all was well.
The solution, surely, is to abolish national and local law. Done with national, and state and local authorities (and Internet warriors) it's time to engage in local...
In addition, the favouritism is beneficial for the user. Why, for example, the p2p packets have the same priority as the data flows from the video game? Why not give the user the ability to set the priority of the packets? Gamers would much prefer that his UDP packets are faster than TCP packets for HTML and YouTube, which he uses less frequently. As for the rest, it's quality of service and "traffic shaping" exist since ancient times, and neutrality has not changed anything.
Besides, why claim from a poor person to pay as much as the rich pay, if the segmentation he could save money and buy only what he really needs? In other words, why force the poor to pay for the Internet, who want rich?
In other words, for the beautiful words, the principles (they are not that "basic" but very well "sold") and intentions hidden fictional image of the Internet where all have equal access. Only here most of the costs have to be paid not by the fact who generates them... in such a paradigm, where all receive some kind of service, which is paid not by those who most use it, there's a word: collectivism.
And like any community, it is doomed to failure.
The Internet has always been not collectivist Paradise, and the creation of the free market. For traffic you have to pay, and the fact that greedy multi-billion it businesses are fighting for net neutrality — the result of a capitalist conspiracy.
- 20-01-2018It has been 10 years and nobody figured out how to use blockchain
- 18-01-2018Tu-334: a nightmare snickering officials returned
- 17-01-2018Ten non-obvious jobs that will be in demand very soon
- 06-01-2018Physical year
- 01-01-2018Ten scientific breakthroughs of 2017
- 30-11--0001Physics saw the beginning of times and confirmed the expansion of the Universe
- 30-09-2010From Russia suggest that you escape as soon as possible