Misteri1963 : LOSS OF net neutrality and the danger CAN MEAN

The following is an article from the Gizmodo website on a topic related to Internet that seems minor, but actually, it can end up being very important on many levels ...

It HAS CHANGED IN THE BATTLE OF THE NETWORK NEUTRALITY (And why should you care)

Another time net neutrality? That had not been resolved three years ago?

Hopefully.

The war for net neutrality reached a sort of truce during the Obama administration, but the new Republican government Trump prepares for a second assault. This is what you need to know.

WHAT IS Net Neutrality?

Network Neutrality is not a law or a rule imposed from any US agency. It is just a theoretical principle of operation. It is good practice, if you prefer. Under this principle, any company offering Internet connection can block or prioritize access to the content for economic reasons.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRIORITY TRAFFIC SERVICE PAYMENT?

You're probably thinking that to prioritize traffic and there right? Internet is full of premium services that provide commercial-free music (Spotify Premium), film and series flat rate (Netflix) or priority access to higher bandwidth services online storage (Mega).

The difference is that these services offer priority access to content from its own servers, that's why they are yours. In other words, once the data packets out of their servers and circulating on the Internet to get home nothing but own technical problems of any connection gets in his way.

IS THIS LIKE NO CENSORSHIP OR REGIONAL BLOCKS?

Again, maybe you're thinking that there are many countries where governments or companies prohibit access to certain content. It is true, but it has to do with net neutrality. An example of this is the web DolarToday, which is impossible to access from Venezuela that provides information on types of unofficial change not like the government of the country. The word for this is censorship.

The same happens when a particular video can not be played from your country because a film company or a record has not reached distribution agreements for that content in that region. The difference is that blocking that content is made at the request of its rightful owner. Phone operator does not decide about it.

HOW WOULD INTERNET the principle of neutrality?

If the principle of neutrality disappeared, telephone operators would be free to regulate traffic under its interests or reach agreements with other companies. Needless to say, companies that provide connection you would love it if this were so, because they would make money.

Very near this example we had for months between Netflix and Telefonica. When Netflix came to Spain, users of the popular streaming service that had their connections with Movistar began to complain that Netflix was going very slow. Netflix metrics confirmed the drop in speed for your service, and there are those who suspect that Movistar altered traffic on purpose because Netflix is direct competition with its own video services.

From Movistar, of course, they are denied altering traffic. After responsible Netflix and Movistar to meet, the incidence was resolved. We will not enter assess whether Movistar really cheated and tried to harm your competition, but it is the perfect example of what would happen in a world without net neutrality example.

Operators could benefit more services paid. The result is that, as a user, you would not have the same quality of access to everything. Some pages would load faster, others would much slower with no technical reason behind. could even if you can not access at all to a service or specific page because your phone company simply prioritize it suits another. Say goodbye to your freedom of choice online.

It is not just an issue that affects users. For small companies or entrepreneurs would be a disaster. The disappearance of the principle of neutrality would prevent them from offering their content or services on equal footing with larger ones. In a world without net neutrality ultimately equal access to Internet would be regulated by one thing: money.

Notably, when Obama urged laws to ensure that alleged net neutrality, lots of alternative media (from right next to the Republican obviously party), were furious, accusing Obama to push legislation to establish Internet censorship .

They had much reason to protest the intervention of the US government on the net, but the alternative they propose is to give freedom to the corporations (in this case, telephone operators) to decide what we see and what not, according to their economic interests.

That is, the alternative proposed by these "freedom fighters" , is a de facto censorship, not made by the "malvadísimo government" but by corporations "beneficent" , now presented as "guarantor of freedom" .

It 's funny how some have taken the word "freedom" to deceive the boobies and grab everything, right?

It's the same kind of riffraff who deceived masses of unwary into believing that Trump was a "revolutionary anti-establishment and anti-system" . The man who delivers the de facto power to large corporations and establishes the true foundations of the New World Order. Why is Goldman Sachs believe that behind him?

I DO NOT SOLVE THAT CAN INSTALL A VPN?

Yes and no. Installing a VPN allows you to access certain content if your operator decides to block them, but the VPN are not a panacea. They slow traffic to a greater or lesser extent.

In other words, if your problem is precisely that the operator slows traffic from certain services, access them from a VPN is not going to help anything.

WHO DECIDES WHETHER THE NETWORK IS NEUTRAL OR NOT?

It depends on each country. In Spain, for example, telephone operators are required to guarantee the quality of its network services like Netflix under an agreement with the National Commission of markets, which is the agency responsible for ensuring that access is equitable .

In the United States, net neutrality is decided by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). During Obama's term, the FCC decided to keep this principle at the request of the president.

In October 2004, President Obama came to the defense of net neutrality in the United States and asked the agency to draft legislation to ensure equal traffic.

The FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, agreed. In February 2015, Wheeler proposed to turn the Internet into a basic service under Title II under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The net neutrality had won a battle but not the war.

WHAT THEY WANT CHANGE NOW?

The key thing is to define what is Internet access. Currently, the FCC considers a basic telecommunications service and, as such, should be guaranteed equal. The companies that provide the service they want to change this, and for this are pressing the government with all means at its disposal.

The result of this pressure is the Act to restore freedom on the Internet (Restoring Internet Freedom Act). His name can not be more misleading. This is a proposal initiated by nine senators seeking to deprive the FCC the power to appoint operators such as telcos Internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

If the proposal goes ahead, Internet operators will no longer be required to ensure a basic and equal service. It's not about free Internet. It is as liberalizing market. The senators behind this proposal and tried to do the same in 2016 without success. They are also responsible for the recent law that basically allows ISPs sell your browsing data.

As an aside, a story also appeared in early March Gizmodo ...

After the vote of the House of Representatives, Donald Trump has signed the law dismantles Internet privacy standards promulgated by Obama. Operators can continue to share the navigation data of Americans without their explicit permission.

US Congress now allows Internet providers to sell your browsing history without your permission

NO LIVE IN USA Why should I care?

As the saying goes: When you see your neighbor's beard cut, put yours to soak. If the United States approves legislation to kill the net neutrality, a very valid for operators around the world ask their governments to do the same, and the worst it is that not lack reason would set precedent. Lack of neutrality in a country affect competition from companies that are not there. It should also be noted that a vast majority of Internet service comes precisely from the United States. If there just the principle of neutrality, the entire Internet would have to adapt to the new rules, and users would gain.

WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is "very little". You can show yourself very angry, but the ball of the decision on net neutrality is on the roof of the US Senate, the FCC, the operators of the country and the tremendous confusion of interests. As much as we indigne the moment the best we can do is be informed on the subject, transmit that knowledge, and not be fooled by names that invoke freedoms.

All bits of information circulating on the Internet should be treated equally. It depends on the network we know and love is still how it is. If our leaders finally play us, it may be time to think seriously about choosing better next time leaders.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT:

We do not share the last sentence, own a website next ideology Democrats.

The problem is not vote for one or the other (also), but is that as much as others, are two different faces of the same evil (and in the best case, two different evils, as in the French elections, apparently).

The problem is that we have allowed the complete system corruption and that no longer is solved "by voting for others."

That system corruption, embodied in the figure of politicians, is laying the foundation of the New World Order, based on privatization and liberalization of all aspects of society, to give full control of the world to large corporations.

The political class is being vilified worldwide, described as inefficient and corrupt, as indeed it is. But this is not something casual. It is part of the plan to establish the new paradigm.

The "solution" we will present this putrefaction, is that politicians are replaced by "qualified persons" in the field of management, figures are from big businessmen or tycoons, to technocrats.

We are already seeing the replacement of traditional politicians for saving figures, with the word "freedom" in the mouth, advocate deliver total and absolute power to large corporations.

Trump and representatives of corporations and Wall Street that fill his administration, are a clear example of this.

And we reiterate what we have said for months (which earned us a massive attack trolls): if the elites have placed Trump in power, among other factors, is that sets the precedent socially, replacement of magnates traditional politicians, big businessmen and senior executives as leaders, indispensable to establish the New Order in which corporations will have the de facto government in the world step.

Trump is the first step towards this new order and after him emerge bigger "successful entrepreneurs" , ready to "bring the countries as a company" .

Does that sound a certain Mark Zuckerberg? It is still a rumor, but his name is beginning to sound like possible presidential candidate for 2020 ... is a terrible sign of what we have been warning for some time.