I don't really post these kinds of journals. This is purely political, in essence, and I try to avoid that. But this is important to me. If you wish not to read further because of that, I don't blame you.
These are my own views, thoughts, and perspectives of understanding. I will be providing some resources that I know of at the end of the journal. If you see anything wrong or fuzzy about my explanation or views, I'm happy to have a conversation in the comments, provided it does not get heated.
What is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is a way of governing the internet. Since the internet is a means of instant communication, Net Neutrality is also a way of governing communication and information.
It is important that the internet remain neutral, so that the interests of all can be shared and judged in equal forum.
If the internet is not Neutral, then this paves the way for economic interest and political interest to shape the way communication and information is shared. It puts an inherent bias toward a particular business, religious, political, or socio-economic interest, or set of them, and limits, or even snuffs, others.
What is the current state of the Internet?
Right now the internet is controlled by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Internet Service Providers are business who have the back-bone infrastructure to create bandwidth that can be used at a large scale to ensure everyone is able to browse the internet.
In other words, ISPs have a massive network of cables, switches, routers, servers, datacenters, hardware, and software, to make sure your little internet packets get to where they need to go safely and securely.
All of this equipment is treated equally. No one packet is more important than any other. Your packet is no more important than the packet of a news organization, or the packet that is transmitting the text that might cause a car crash, or the packet is that is spreading the virus all throughout a company.
ISps are also an oligopoly, and a local monopoly. This is why Google Fiber is such a huge deal, because Google is basically the only company that has any clout to enter an ISP's current market footprint.
This is why you have at best 2 choices of an ISP, if you're lucky.
ISPs are paid by you, the consumer, because you consume bandwidth. You pay for a certain amount of upload, and download, bandwidth.
Upload bandwidth is for how fast you can, say, post a submission here on InkBunny. Or, more practically, how quickly it takes you to upload that 4 GB youtube video, or that 2 GB sound clip to Soundcloud or Google Drive.
Download bandwidth is how quickly you can receive data. When you watch a YouTube video, Netflix, or watch Games Done Quick, you are downloading lots of data.
You usually have much higher download bandwidth and speeds than you do upload, as the priority and the most use of the internet is for downloading.
Bandwidth is measured in some kind of bits-per-second; sometimes Kb/s (Kilobits-per-second), Mb/s (Megabits-per-second), or Gb/s (Gigabits-per-second). This is not the same as, but can get confused with, measures such as KiloBytes, MegaBytes, and GigaBytes; but these measurements are 8-times as large, because a Byte is 8-bits.
If you have a download speed of, say, 500 Mb/s (note: arbitrary number for ease of explanation), that means you could download 500,000,000 bits per second (or, if you wish, 62,500,000 Bytes, or about 0.0625 GigaBytes).
Often you are not using all 500 Megabits per second, and you are often not downloading at all. Think of how many hours a day you sleep, and how many Megabits that is that you aren't using.
Also, ISPs were recently allowed to share your browsing history to advertisers. This means that the advertisers are paying for your browsing history to construct profiles on your and other people.
ISPs are receiving funds for you in order to browse the internet by some allocated bandwidth, and then they are turning to advertisers to sell the data that was a result of the browsing you did with the bandwidth that you paid for--this is double-dipping.
How does the Internet work without Net Neutraility?
In a non-Net-Neutral world, ISPs would be allowed to have "priority lanes."
Remember how I said that your packets are no more important than any other packet? This is not so in a non-Neutral Internet.
In a non-Neutral internet, the companies that are uploading data and providing it to be downloaded are put into prioritized lanes; those that are paying additional money get put into "fast" lanes, while those that are not paying extra are getting put into "normal" lanes.
This is happening now with Netflix. Netflix is paying extra so that its packets can be delivered to you faster than those packets sent by YouTube, Twitch, Amazon, Hulu, etc.
This means that ISPs are receiving funds so that you have bandwidth to browse the internet. They are also receiving funds from companies to make sure that company's data is getting to you faster. Then they are turning to sell the data from your browsing to advertisers.
It's a win-win-win... For the ISP.
It is also possible that the scenario I explained earlier is not necessarily what we get. Instead of companies paying for a "fast" lane and everyone else having to go about with a "normal" lane, that is assuming that "normal" means the speeds we see today.
It is possible that the "fast" lane I describe could be turned down to be the speed that we are currently experiencing today, and the "normal" lane be turned down to be slower than the normal speeds we see today.
WHich means that the ISPs are able to receive more funds, without having to tax their hardware any more, and with greater proportion on returns than they currently are.
The more extreme possibility is that this software layer that prioritizes internet packets could be used to then harbor or hold ransom certain packets.
So, for example, InkBunny is a site that can host adult material. An ISP is lobbied by political interest to put pressure on sites that host explicit material. Thus, InkBunny is a site that is targeted. The ISP could have the power, in a non-Net-Neutral world, to prevent InkBunny's traffic from reaching its consumers, unless InkBunny pays the ISPs a little extra (perhaps an "adult material tax").
Should InkBunny be unwilling or unable to pay this extra fee to the ISP, then the software layer that can handle prioritization of packets, will not send these packets out entirely, or will slow them down such that it is virtually impractical to browse InkBunny.
These are very doom-and-gloom thoughts, and I will not necessarily claim that I believe they will be true. However, I do believe it is important that the Ineternet stay Neutral.
Communication is the most important thing we as a people have. The ability to share ideas, no matter how great or how ill, is a very important thing.
I want to share my ideas as a writer. I believe them to be, at the very least, entertaining and fun, and hope that it would be thought-provoking and emotive. I would personally be distraught if I wasn't able to share some of the material that I have written, as I do enjoy sharing it with others.
How can I help keep the internet Neutral?
Do research, while it's neutral now. Strive to understand and picture a world that is non-Neutral; but be mindful of falling down a slippery slope or attacking a strawman.
Here are a few resources for you to look at, but do some searching on your own:
Thank you for the concise yet comprehensive crash course here. And for the links. It helps provide context instead of simply stirring up panic or sense of urgency. Not to knock people who just share the short "call your representative" as stirring up panic. That's helpful too. But I like a good tl;dr.
Thank you for the concise yet comprehensive crash course here. And for the links. It helps provide c
Hehe, well, It was tough to be tl;dr length. But it is important to understand how Net Neutrality keeps the net free, and part of that is understanding how the net, and ISPs, work. As the internet becomes more pervasive in our lives--in our pockets, cars, surveillance cameras, and even our fridges for crying out loud--it's important to have a basic understanding of the hardware, software, and protocols that are in place.
The internet is all physically tiny, almost immeasurable packets of information. It's actually kind of amazing that such small packets of electrical signals can have such a large impact on the way we communicate and share information.
Hehe, well, It was tough to be tl;dr length. But it is important to understand how Net Neutrality ke
I have just sent and extensive posting to Mozilla who is asking anyone to put their two cents in to help fight the drop of Net Neutrality. I gave a little bit more than that. Unfortunately I did not save a hard copy of what I just sent them. I would have added it to my journal on this site if I did.
Part of what they are concerned about is the fall of free speech on the net.
Who will control what, as far as what can be not only be posted but created online by anyone seems to be at stake as well. That is overall web hosting control. One could possibly say bye-bye to such sites as Ink Bunny if it was to happen. Possibly, but don't quote me on that.
One other bad thing that might happen is a near global revolt! WAR! if that was to happen. And many people may not know who started it, nor who to fight, nor how to fight such a war. But people will be very angry just the same, they just might not know who to be angry at.
This seems much bigger than just an internet speed paid allocation issue, or even bigger than the loss of free speech, but a loss in how many of us use the internet as a whole. And as a furry alone, never mind the other things I use the net for, such as watching tech talks, learning how to use various software via videos, and so much more, this concerns me greatly. It should concern everyone greatly.
But all of that is just my take on this issue. I do find it disturbing, and not in an entertaining way.
Attacking a strawman? I have had such happen to me a few times, that is one injecting an argument that had noting to do with the context of the page we were on, one that can neither be proven nor disproved, but has been suggested as the truth just the same by the one, just for the sake of trying to tare me down emotionally. And this, in part, over just a story I made. ...
Free speech is good and all, I will never say it is not. Just the same, some can abuse that right just for the chance to be mean to those they know not personally, or even those they may know personally. Such a shame. Attacking a strawman seems to happen online way to much. Who are we as people when we do such a thing to others for the sake of just doing it?
Sorry for the slight skew in subject but it is something that bothers me in what people do to each other online, as well as the main subject at hand.
I have just sent and extensive posting to Mozilla who is asking anyone to put their two cents in to
