STICKY ? Save The Internet

[massive_attack]

​

Basically, big business is trying to "help" (read: ruin) the internet for us IMHO.

Short story : Big Business Corp Inc wants to create a "tiered" internet. The one for people who PAY them (read: blackmail) for traffic and those who don't.

This will create problems. Those who pay, who can afford to pay will get the best service (read: faster service). As of now, all sites get equal treatment.

Think of it like a toll road for the internet. Those who pay the toll go fast, those who don't , well - don't go fast. Except like with toll roads which charge to pay for themselves the "internet" has already paid for itself. You don't hear about ATT and etc going into debt because golly jee, this internet thing is just dragging them down.

So ebay.com will load fast but debatepolitics.com ? Heh, not so much. All those other web sites you go to that can't afford to pay the blackmail fee to ATT and so on, ya, they won't be loading fast either.

If this passes LITERALLY future generations will ask you stuff like, "oh so you got to use the internet before...."

From the site Save The Internet

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.

Have a nice day !

​

ps. can we make this a sticky until this issue is over with ? this is probably the most serious issue to come up about the internet !

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I'll move it to a more appropriate forum.

 

[jamesrage]

​

Basically, big business is trying to "help" (read: ruin) the internet for us IMHO.

Short story : Big Business Corp Inc wants to create a "tiered" internet. The one for people who PAY them (read: blackmail) for traffic and those who don't.

This will create problems. Those who pay, who can afford to pay will get the best service (read: faster service). As of now, all sites get equal treatment.

Think of it like a toll road for the internet. Those who pay the toll go fast, those who don't , well - don't go fast. Except like with toll roads which charge to pay for themselves the "internet" has already paid for itself. You don't hear about ATT and etc going into debt because golly jee, this internet thing is just dragging them down.

So ebay.com will load fast but debatepolitics.com ? Heh, not so much. All those other web sites you go to that can't afford to pay the blackmail fee to ATT and so on, ya, they won't be loading fast either.

If this passes LITERALLY future generations will ask you stuff like, "oh so you got to use the internet before...."

From the site Save The Internet




Have a nice day !

​

ps. can we make this a sticky until this issue is over with ? this is probably the most serious issue to come up about the internet !

So this isn't the same as paying extra service for cable internet verses regular dial up internet?i

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So this isn't the same as paying extra service for cable internet verses regular dial up internet?i

I think it is on the other end, the sites' ends rather than the users's ends.

 

[Jerry]

​

Basically, big business is trying to "help" (read: ruin) the internet for us IMHO.
Short story : Big Business Corp Inc wants to create a "tiered" internet. The one for people who PAY them (read: blackmail) for traffic and those who don't.
This will create problems. Those who pay, who can afford to pay will get the best service (read: faster service). As of now, all sites get equal treatment.

This thread belongs in the archives. We already have to pay relative to the service speed. Nothing new here.

Perhaps if you would source the proposed Congressional "law" (you didn't say whether it was a Bill or an Act) you mite have something to talk about.

 

[hipsterdufus]

This is THE issue today. The fact that people seem so apathetic about it is disconcerting.

Net Neutrality is the 1st ammenedment of the internet. It keeps DP as fast as Yahoo News, Newsmax, Daily Kos or anywhere else. Without it, the internet loses a lot of its freedom. This should really be a bipartisan issue that we can all agree on its importance.

 

[Jerry]

This is THE issue today. The fact that people seem so apathetic about it is disconcerting.

Net Neutrality is the 1st ammenedment of the internet. It keeps DP as fast as Yahoo News, Newsmax, Daily Kos or anywhere else. Without it, the internet loses a lot of its freedom. This should really be a bipartisan issue that we can all agree on its importance.

I still do not see any source material. What are you talking about? What Law?

Site the existing statute, with a link, and show how the new legislation, provide a link to that also, will change it.

 

[massive_attack]

This is very different than the "dial-up vs cable" internet game.

If this bill passes the major internet service provides, those who run the back bones will be allowed to give "low" priority to non-paying web sites while giving "high" priority to sites that do pay.

Think of it like this, basically every web site you try to get to right now is given "high" priority by your internet service provides.

Speed is good, the speed is consistent and so on.

But if your web site traffic got "low" priority you'd have to wait for your ISPs to decide when is a good time to fill your request. After all, the web site your visiting isn't a paying customer so why should they be in a hurry ?

Oh and BTW Jerry : google it.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I still do not see any source material. What are you talking about? What Law?

Site the existing statute, with a link, and show how the new legislation, provide a link to that also, will change it.

Sure, happy to.

This is a good place to start.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) has championed Net Neutrality through a bill in the Judiciary committee.
Sen. Ron Wyden
Sen. Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006 (S 2360) in March

ibid

Good info here too.
http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=138

 

[Jerry]

So basically, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006 is an extension of the Telecomunications act of 1996.

The fact that it is being called "Non-Discrimination" rather than simply an extension is suspect. Why add such a propagandic title? I sense a standard scare tactic: "You're being attacked", with the specific form of attack being "discrimination". Not being a person with a victim mentality nor persecution complex, I smell a rat.

A simple extension of the existing law would relieve restriction concerns, so why the fear mongering? Painting the internet providing companies as the bad guys is a smoke screen.

The only difference between a simple extension and the Internet Non-Discrimination Act is the emphasis on making, specifically, high speed dialup more available.

The I.N.D.A. specifically does not concern itself with cable connections (Section 3, definition 4,c.). Why? Why the interest in dial-up? Who profits from this Act?

 

[Jerry]

Oh and BTW Jerry : google it.

That's just something that lazy people say.
Why you can't simply quote where you read the law (I assume your read the law.....you did read the law before posting about it, right? Otherwise how would you know anything about it's contents for your self?....), I don't know.

Oh, and I didn't find my links on google, either. I found only news articles, op-eds and similar on google. Nothing useful at all.

 

[massive_attack]

Jerry,

I run into a lot of people on forums who want me to do all their googling for them and frankly I don't have the time.

Your asking me to find the info for you and you call me lazy ?

I've already posted a link to a site that contains info on the subject matter

Back to you calling ME lazy. If you'd have bothered to click the FAQ link at their site you could find some of the same information you petitioned me for.

Tisk tisk tisk.

Or, maybe, just maybe, if you'd have been polite I would have provided the information to you.

 

[Jerry]

Jerry,

I run into a lot of people on forums who want me to do all their googling for them and frankly I don't have the time.

Your asking me to find the info for you and you call me lazy ?

I've already posted a link to a site that contains info on the subject matter

Back to you calling ME lazy. If you'd have bothered to click the FAQ link at their site you could find some of the same information you petitioned me for.

Tisk tisk tisk.

Or, maybe, just maybe, if you'd have been polite I would have provided the information to you.

It is I who had to do your work.

Save-the-net has no useful information, only "because I say so" op-eds and news articles. Since it's your thread, it's your job to know what your talking about and back it up with verifiable facts. If you speak of a law, you must source that law so that others can read it for themselves.

You will have to excuse me for not being a follower. I don't accept something just because I want it to be true. You should follow my example.

The fact that you cling to an anti-corporate literary style tells me that you did not in-fact read the law before posting an opinion on it.

So tell me, why is cable left out? Why is the Act only about dial-up? Why the fear mongering over something which has always been illegal?

 

[Schweddy]

Jerry is right - it is up to the original poster to site a claim with evidence for a good discussion.

Back to topic:

What is the issue? This is capitolism at it's best.

The internet is free, but bandwidth is not.

I use comcast. If comcast all of a sudden decided that google will be blocked - I will go to another service.

 

[Schweddy]

Here is a video google video's about it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7163575636071182452&q=genre:comedy

 

[talloulou]

Seems like an important issue to me. I don't like the idea of the internet being censored in anyway and it almost seems like this is a form of censorship as smaller blog sites may not be as accessible if the internet is turned into a tier system and small sites have low to zero priority. The thing that is great about the internet is thus far capitalism hasn't made it "smaller" so to speak. Taking away internet neutralilty could in fact make it smaller in the long run. So it will be similar to the major newspapers and major news stations....it will seem like all the info is coming from a variety of sources when in fact there are very few stations and papers that own everything.

 

[Jerry]

Seems like an important issue to me. I don't like the idea of the internet being censored in anyway and it almost seems like this is a form of censorship as smaller blog sites may not be as accessible if the internet is turned into a tier system and small sites have low to zero priority. The thing that is great about the internet is thus far capitalism hasn't made it "smaller" so to speak. Taking away internet neutralilty could in fact make it smaller in the long run. So it will be similar to the major newspapers and major news stations....it will seem like all the info is coming from a variety of sources when in fact there are very few stations and papers that own everything.

That's just the thing, though. Yes, it's a concern, so just extend the law. The public need not even be notified. Why all the fear mongering? Why is only high-speed dialup the issue? Why is cable left out? Why why why?

 

[Stace]

Jerry is right - it is up to the original poster to site a claim with evidence for a good discussion.

Back to topic:

What is the issue? This is capitolism at it's best.

The internet is free, but bandwidth is not.

I use comcast. If comcast all of a sudden decided that google will be blocked - I will go to another service.

The problem is addressed right in the INDA:

(6)Despite the growth of the Internet and increased access to the Internet for Americans, there is very little choice in who provides them high-speed Internet access. According to an April 2005 White Paper by Harold Feld and Gregory Rose, et. al., entitled, ‘‘Connecting the Public: The Truth About Municipal Broadband’’ only 2 percent of Americans get high-speed Internet access from someone other than their local phone company or cable provider. According to the Federal Communications Commission, approximately 20 percent of Americans do not have a high-speed Internet access provider that offers them service.
(7) As more and more Americans get high-speed access to the Internet without having much choice of who their provider will be, it is important
that Congress protect the freedom on the Internet to ensure its continued success.

Not everyone has multiple choices when it comes to who provides their internet. Heck, I only have one choice for who provides my home phone service, so if I were to have a DSL connection, I would only have one choice for that. I also only have one choice as to who provides the cable access that I DO have. Anyway, so I have two choices for high speed access...if they both blocked/slowed sites that I frequent, I would either have to go to dial up, or I'd be out of luck. The way I'm seeing this, Congress wants folks to have more options as to who their providers can be, so as to avoid such a scenario, to keep the market more competitive.

 

[massive_attack]

It is I who had to do your work.

Save-the-net has no useful information, only "because I say so" op-eds and news articles. Since it's your thread, it's your job to know what your talking about and back it up with verifiable facts. If you speak of a law, you must source that law so that others can read it for themselves.

You will have to excuse me for not being a follower. I don't accept something just because I want it to be true. You should follow my example.

The fact that you cling to an anti-corporate literary style tells me that you did not in-fact read the law before posting an opinion on it.

So tell me, why is cable left out? Why is the Act only about dial-up? Why the fear mongering over something which has always been illegal?

No useful information according to you. You being the same person who didn't even read the FAQ to get the name of the bill(s) in question.

Your right, I didn't read the law and I never will.

You'll also find me complaining about the Patriot Act and guess what - I'm not reading that one either.

The fact is I'm chosing not to engage you because you call this a "non-issue" and you seem to have a contrary attitude towards me. I think you are misinformed, there are a lot of people who think this is an issue.

Google is one of them. Perhaps you'd like to accuse them of anti-corporate views and what not. The fact is I've heard about this bill(s) on every major tech web site I go to : digg, slashdot, wired and so on. Oh FYI, Microsoft (the ultimate anti-corporate , "i like non-issues" company) thinks this is an issue to. Amazing isn't it ?

Other people who think this is a big deal : the aclu, christian coalition of america, moveon.org, the founder of craigs lists, Scott Bradner -- Harvard Technology Security Officer, Professor Susan Crawford -- Online legal expert, Internet2 and the Texas Internet Service Providers Association.

My god, it's a whos-who of anti-capilist misinformed nut jobs

This of course is the very small list of people concerned. Yet you assure me this is a non-issue. Perhaps you can understand why I have trouble believing you, the only person to date who I've seen call this a non-issue.

If I got the impression that you had a genuine interest about this I'd address you.

Yet you tell me this is a "non-issue" while at the same time admitting to not knowing much about it.

Irony indeed.

 

[Jerry]

No useful information according to you. You being the same person who didn't even read the FAQ to get the name of the bill(s) in question.

All your sourced was a ninja and some opinions. I sourced law.

Your right, I didn't read the law and I never will.

You'll also find me complaining about the Patriot Act and guess what - I'm not reading that one either.

The fact is I'm chosing not to engage you because you call this a "non-issue" and you seem to have a contrary attitude towards me. I think you are misinformed, there are a lot of people who think this is an issue.

LOL, listen bud, I've actually read the law. You admit that you haven't "and never will". So it will not be you who can legitimately accuse me of being "misinformed".

It's like discussing the legality of abortion without actually reading Roe-V-Wade. :roll:

Google is one of them. Perhaps you'd like to accuse them of anti-corporate views and what not. The fact is I've heard about this bill(s) on every major tech web site I go to : digg, slashdot, wired and so on. Oh FYI, Microsoft (the ultimate anti-corporate , "i like non-issues" company) thinks this is an issue to. Amazing isn't it ?

Other people who think this is a big deal : the aclu, christian coalition of america, moveon.org, the founder of craigs lists, Scott Bradner -- Harvard Technology Security Officer, Professor Susan Crawford -- Online legal expert, Internet2 and the Texas Internet Service Providers Association.

My god, it's a whos-who of anti-capilist misinformed nut jobs

This of course is the very small list of people concerned. Yet you assure me this is a non-issue. Perhaps you can understand why I have trouble believing you, the only person to date who I've seen call this a non-issue.

If I got the impression that you had a genuine interest about this I'd address you.

Yet you tell me this is a "non-issue" while at the same time admitting to not knowing much about it.

Irony indeed.

You misunderstand.
I had no idea of what you were talking about because all you sourced was a ninja and some opinions. No law.

When discussing law I always start with reading the law and digesting it for myself. Only after that do I listen to opinions. Since I did not expect you to know how I operate, I asked you for the law. You did not source the law, only opinions, and when asked for the law you didn't even recommend the site's FAQ (which you now accuse me of not reading). All you said was "google it".

Now then, I suggest you get off your @$$ and start discussing the issue, lest this thread end up in the Basement.

 

[Mr. D]

Re: STICKY ? Save The Internet Censorship!!!

Guys!

The House of Reps. already passed the COPE Bill to allow phone and cable companies to control content (censorship) and access (pay more or you wait in a long line to put content on)! We are losing the uncensored free internet while Americans sleep and watch Survivor!

Senate bill S.2917 will save the internet from censorship and control of access by the phone and cable companies! Email your Senator and tell them you support Net Neutrality "hands off" and bill S.2917! It's another huge money grab just for profit!

Do it or you be sorry when it's too late! Welcome to Communist China's controlled internet! It's the last place to get info. without it passing someone else's P.C. test! This is much more dangerous to democracy than flag burning! It means we can't get uncensored information that hasn't been approved by the phone and cable companies that are in bed with our politicians. It means pnone and cable companies can control supplier of content based on how much they pay!

 

[Mr. D]

Re: STICKY ? Save The Internet Censorship!!!

Guys!

The House of Reps. already passed the COPE Bill to allow phone and cable companies to control content (censorship) and access (pay more or you wait in a long line to put content on)! We are losing the uncensored free internet while Americans sleep and watch Survivor!

Senate bill S.2917 will save the internet from censorship and control of access by the phone and cable companies! Email your Senator and tell them you support Net Neutrality "hands off" and bill S.2917! It's another huge money grab just for profit!

Do it or you be sorry when it's too late! Welcome to Communist China's controlled internet! It's the last place to get info. without it passing someone else's P.C. test! This is much more dangerous to democracy than flag burning! It means we can't get uncensored information that hasn't been approved by the phone and cable companies that are in bed with our politicians. It means pnone and cable companies can control supplier of content based on how much they pay!

 

[Jerry]

Senate rejects regulating Internet access

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 28, 6:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A massive effort by Internet users to prohibit telephone and cable companies from providing better service and prices to preferred customers failed to get through a Senate committee on Wednesday.

After three days of debate, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved a bill intended to let phone companies and other telecommunications providers better compete in video markets now monopolized by cable companies.

The measure faces an uncertain future because of the controversy over "net neutrality" — how to ensure that consumers and Internet content providers continue having open and nondiscriminatory access to the Internet.

Article continued at url.