I have always been in favor of net neutrality -- enforced by government. The idea of "government control of the internet is as ridiculous as government control of any utility. The regulations are there to insure a fair shake for consumers and effective management of national infrastructure, nothing more, nothing less. But, that was all "back in the day" of internet being delivered over coax, FiOS, and LTE.
With the advent of 5G that could all change. Not only does 5G have the capacity to replace most or all of today's conventional delivery methods, but 5G can be software targeted to deliver pinpoint accuracy for critical functions like remote surgery and self-driving or remotely driven vehicles -- and a ton more.
I think this whole thing needs to be thought through as to how it will be used, how it fits into and supports critical U.S. infrastructure, and who says which resources get which resources? For instance: Do you trust Verizon to provide and decide how much you pay for remote surgery over their network? What will stop them from price gouging based on willingness to pay -- the same as Big Pharma does for life saving critical medications? Or say, your self driving car travels from the area covered by your Verizon network into AT&T's -- can AT&T then charge you a "roaming fee"?
If you look at the big picture, net neutrality hasn't done anything. I think the mandate by Obama in 2015 declaring internet a public utility made things worse. Net neutrality caused investment into broadband internet to decrease. With net neutrality, Title II regulations were imposed on ISP's. Under the regulations, all proposals had to be submitted to the FCC for approval. Look at how long it took the FCC to allow T-Mobile's Binge On service. Another huge problem in this country net neutrality doesn't address is the local monopolies all around the nation. All these restrictions city, county, and state governments have done has stymied competition. Almost every place I've lived in only had one option for high speed internet. Net neutrality also hasn't helped rural customers, who represent 20% of the U.S. population. I've seen quite a few local projects aimed at rural customers get the ax due to the bureaucracy of net neutrality regulations. Bottom line, I just think enforcing Great Depression era laws on the internet don't protect the consumer or help broadband growth. There is just too much misinformation out there where people continue to falsely believe net neutrality creates an open and free internet, which it doesn't. The hands off approach prior to the 2015 mandate is the way to go.
Good summation of free market ideology. But, I prefer reality thank you.
In reality, scarce commodities can only be distributed on two ways: Market pricing or rationing. Which one do you think NN was closest to?
Really? Free Market ideology preaches that either/or nonsense too? So disapointed! Libertarians (and I studied economics under one of the best) used to be hard nosed realists rather than having to use spin and lies.
There's no evidence whatsoever that abandoning net neutrality regulations has increased new investment or innovation.
On the flip side (something that is much more important), there is 0 evidence the Title II take over of the Internet by the government (called "Net Neutrality" to lure in the flies) did anything to lower costs, increase investment or speed innovation.
All I know, since the appeal of the government takeover, my upload speeds have gone from 5Mb/sec to 40Mb/sec, my download speeds have gone from 40Mb to 80Mb/sec and my price has gone from $60/month to $40/month. All with the same company.
Except that that "takeover" part was just right wing spin to their faithful cult to distract from the fact they wanted the carriers to (as you say) "take over the Internet". They knew that nobody would ever trust Comcast or Verizon -- so instead they talked trash about the government. It's their standard protocol -- "When you can't defend your position, trash talk the other side"
I'm starting to research the part of 5G that's not being shown in the mainstream – the dangers of it.
For those concerned about the dangers of 5G:
Thousands of studies link low-level wireless radio frequency radiation exposures to a long list of adverse biological effects, including:
DNA single and double strand breaks
oxidative damage
disruption of cell metabolism
increased blood brain barrier permeability
melatonin reduction
disruption to brain glucose metabolism
generation of stress proteins
in 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen.
More recently the $25 million National Toxicology Program concluded that radio frequency radiation of the type currently used by cell phones can cause cancer.
We’re going to be bombarded by really high frequencies at low, short-range intensities creating a yet more complicated denser soup of electrosmog.
To work with the higher range MMW in 5G, the antennas required are smaller. Some experts are talking about as small as 3mm by 3mm. The low intensity is for efficiency and to deal with signal disruption from natural and man-made obstacles.
The effects of millimeter waves as studied by Dr. Yael Stein of Hebrew University is said to also cause humans physical pain as our nociceptors flare up in recognition of the wave as a damaging stimuli. So we’re looking at possibilities of many skin diseases and cancer as well as physical pain to our skin.
A 1994 study found that low level millimeter microwave radiation produced lens opacity in rats, which is linked to the production of cataracts.
A 2003 Chinese study has also found damage to the lens epithelial cells of rabbits after 8 hours of exposure to microwave radiation and a 2009 study conducted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Pakistan conclude that EMFs emitted by a mobile phone cause derangement of chicken embryo retinal differentiation.
A 1992 Russian study found that frequencies in the range 53-78GHz (that which 5G proposes to use) impacted the heart rate variability (an indicator of stress) in rats. Another Russian study on frogs who’s skin was exposed to MMWs found heart rate changes (arrhythmias).
A 2002 Russian study examined the effects of 42HGz microwave radiation exposure on the blood of healthy mice. It was concluded that “the whole-body exposure of healthy mice to low-intensity EHF EMR has a profound effect on the indices of nonspecific immunity”.
A 2016 Armenian study observed MMWs at low intensity, mirroring the future environment brought about by 5G. Their study conducted on E-coli and other bacteria stated that the waves had depressed their growth as well as “changing properties and activity” of the cells. The concern is that it would do the same to human cells.
The very same Armenian study also suggested that MMWs effects are mainly on water, cell plasma membrane and genome too. They had found that MMW’s interaction with bacteria altered their sensitivity to “different biologically active chemicals, including antibiotics.” More specifically, the combination of MMW and antibiotics showed that it may be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
This groundbreaking finding could have a magnum effect on the health of human beings as the bandwidth is rolled out nationwide. The concern is that we develop a lower resistance to bacteria as our cells become more vulnerable – and we become more vulnerable.
One of the features of 5G is that the MMW is particularly susceptible to being absorbed by plants and rain. Humans and animals alike consume plants as a food source. The effects MMW has on plants could leave us with food that’s not safe to consume.
#9 – EFFECTS ON THE ATMOSPHERE AND DEPLETION OF FOSSIL FUELS
Implementation of the 5G global wireless network requires the launching of rockets to deploy satellites for 5G. These satellites have a short lifespan which would require a lot more deployment than what we’re currently seeing. A new type of hydrocarbon rocket engine expected to power a fleet of suborbital rockets would emit black carbon which “could cause potentially significant changes in the global atmospheric circulation and distributions of ozone and temperature” according to a 2010 Californian study. Solid state rocket exhaust contains chlorine which also destroys the ozone.
Google’s Project Loon is said to bring Internet to rural and hard-to-access areas by using helium balloons. But these balloons only have a 10-month lifespan. We’re looking at a lot of helium being used here, more than what we can possibly have on Earth?
Since the year 2000, there have been reports of birds abandoning their nests as well as health issues like “plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship and death,” says researcher Alfonso Balmori. Bird species that are affected by these low levels, non-ionizing microwave radiation are the House Sparrows, Rock Doves, White Storks, Collared Doves and Magpies, among others.
But it’s not just the birds. The declining bee population is also said to be linked to this non-ionizing EMF radiation. It reduces the egg-laying abilities of the queen leading to a decline in colony strength.
A study conducted by Chennai’s Loyola College in 2012 concluded that out of 919 research studies carried out on birds, plants, bees and other animals and humans, 593 of them showed impacts from RF-EMF radiations. 5G will be adding to the effects of this electrosmog.
5G will use pulsed millimeter waves to carry information. But as Dr. Joel Moskowitz points out, most 5G studies are misleading because they do not pulse the waves. This is important because research on microwaves already tells us how pulsed waves have more profound biological effects on our body compared to non-pulsed waves. Previous studies, for instance, show how pulse rates of the frequencies led to gene toxicity and DNA strand breaks.
***** WHAT EXPERTS ARE SAYING
“Along with the 5G there is another thing coming – Internet of Things. If you look at it combined the radiation level is going to increase tremendously and yet the industry is very excited about it…. they project 5G/IoT business to be a $7 trillion business.”
-Prof. Girish Kumar, Professor at Electrical Engineering Department at IIT Bombay
“The new 5G wireless technology involves millimeter waves (extremely high frequencies) producing photons of much greater energy than even 4G and WiFi. Allowing this technology to be used without proving its safety is reckless in the extreme, as the millimeter waves are known to have a profound effect on all parts of the human body.”
-Prof. Trevor Marshall, Director Autoimmunity Research Foundation, California
“The plans to beam highly penetrative 5G milliwave radiation at us from space must surely be one of the greatest follies ever conceived of by mankind. There will be nowhere safe to live.”
-Olga Sheean former WHO employee and author of ‘No Safe Place’
“It would irradiate everyone, including the most vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation: pregnant women, unborn children, young children, teenagers, men of reproductive age, the elderly, the disabled, and the chronically ill.”
—Ronald Powell, PhD, Letter to FCC on 5G expansion
***** How To Protect Yourself From 5G
1. Understand your exposures. Understand the different types of EMFs and how they behave – hence the need to read (and share) articles like this one.
2. Measure – use an EMF meter to obtain readings and identify hotspots.
3. Mitigate your exposure. Which means either eliminate the source, move further away from the source of radiation or shield your body.
I recommend the same approach with 5G. There is a concern that current EMF meters are not able to measure the frequencies of MMWs. On this point, researcher Alasdair Philips from Powerwatch states “current RF meters cover the frequency ranges proposed for most 5G use in the next three years”.
---------
So, yeah, this is important to share with friends and family.
Even assuming that all of that was true, I doubt it would make a difference. As an analogy, a few years ago I was on a Disaster Relief operation for the Red Cross due to flooding in the hills of West Virginia. What happened was mountain top mining disrupted the traditional drainage systems of mountains and instead the water (quite literally) got diverted through people's homes living at the base of those mountains. After having 3 feet of water roar through their homes, their reaction was: "No problem. We'll just nail up some new paneling. We need that mining operation --- it's our jobs, our lives, our food and our homes".
Or, in the 1800's Charles Dickens, after viewing Pittsburgh from above described it as "Hell with the lid off". But, the residents didn't care. To them, that smoke meant jobs.
LOL... "Net Neutrality" was simply a set of rules saying that Verizon and other providers couldn't decide what you see and whether you paid more than your neighbor for seeing it. But, the free marketers trust Verizon to make their decisions for them. So silly. So sad.
Sorry, but I'll trust my government before I'll trust Verizon or Concast
This is truly the root of the issue. The government and the corporations are both run by flawed humans. You should not just trust one over the other. You should demand accountability from both.
LOL... "Net Neutrality" was simply a set of rules saying that Verizon and other providers couldn't decide what you see and whether you paid more than your neighbor for seeing it. But, the free marketers trust Verizon to make their decisions for them. So silly. So sad.
Sorry, but I'll trust my government before I'll trust Verizon or Concast
This is truly the root of the issue. The government and the corporations are both run by flawed humans. You should not just trust one over the other. You should demand accountability from both.
Gaw Darn! An intelligent comment on a politicized issue! Where the hell did you come from?
Unless we could hope for something that resembles net neutrality (the principal, not Net Neutrality™) in spirit and outworking, this is all just political football.
The repeal of net neutrality two years ago was supposed to kill the internet. But as I type it appears alive.
You mean the thing that was never actually implemented in the first place?
I think it was the threat of it that was the main thing, and now that it's gone, the telcos have gone back to being even badder than before. But, as I mentioned above, there were big issues with Net Neutrality™ too (both in terms of policy/censorship, as well as actual implementation... for example, should those fire-fighters, or their traffic, not have been given special treatment?).
Unless we could hope for something that resembles net neutrality (the principal, not Net Neutrality™) in spirit and outworking, this is all just political football.
Unfortunately making issues a political football has largely surpassed debate over the issues. Which side one is on seems to determine how one views facts.
Unless we could hope for something that resembles net neutrality (the principal, not Net Neutrality™) in spirit and outworking, this is all just political football.
Unfortunately making issues a political football has largely surpassed debate over the issues. Which side one is on seems to determine how one views facts.
Can I remind you that you labelled me a right wing extremist for making the incendiary claim that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner just yesterday?
Unless we could hope for something that resembles net neutrality (the principal, not Net Neutrality™) in spirit and outworking, this is all just political football.
Unfortunately making issues a political football has largely surpassed debate over the issues. Which side one is on seems to determine how one views facts.
Can I remind you that you labelled me a right wing extremist for making the incendiary claim that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner just yesterday?
A bit of self awareness please.
Nice marginalization/minimalization of what you actually said. That's the mark of an extremist -- put out unfounded, incendiary comments then smudge them up and walk them back when challenged.
Unless we could hope for something that resembles net neutrality (the principal, not Net Neutrality™) in spirit and outworking, this is all just political football.
Unfortunately making issues a political football has largely surpassed debate over the issues. Which side one is on seems to determine how one views facts.
Can I remind you that you labelled me a right wing extremist for making the incendiary claim that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner just yesterday?
A bit of self awareness please.
Nice marginalization/minimalization of what you actually said. That's the mark of an extremist -- put out unfounded, incendiary comments then smudge them up and walk them back when challenged.
Sorry, should have left well alone, you're clearly unhinged.
Comments
As an analogy, a few years ago I was on a Disaster Relief operation for the Red Cross due to flooding in the hills of West Virginia. What happened was mountain top mining disrupted the traditional drainage systems of mountains and instead the water (quite literally) got diverted through people's homes living at the base of those mountains. After having 3 feet of water roar through their homes, their reaction was: "No problem. We'll just nail up some new paneling. We need that mining operation --- it's our jobs, our lives, our food and our homes".
Or, in the 1800's Charles Dickens, after viewing Pittsburgh from above described it as "Hell with the lid off". But, the residents didn't care. To them, that smoke meant jobs.
You mean the thing that was never actually implemented in the first place?
I think it was the threat of it that was the main thing, and now that it's gone, the telcos have gone back to being even badder than before. But, as I mentioned above, there were big issues with Net Neutrality™ too (both in terms of policy/censorship, as well as actual implementation... for example, should those fire-fighters, or their traffic, not have been given special treatment?).
A bit of self awareness please.