Internet

[|0rk0|]

"Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.

But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.

http://www.savetheinternet.com

Discuss

[ohman]

http://www.savetheinternet.com

Discuss
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

[Zogo]

on the surface it SEEMS like a good idea for the gov't to protect the consumer in this instance..however, we've seen the gov't start out trying to help the consumer..but once they get their hands into it they start regulating other stuff against the consumer.

and when the gov't regulates it's basically the only choice you have..compared to when a business is making a decision you can just switch services. if you don't like how the gov't does it then you have to move out of the country for another option.


my point is that if these businesses really screwed the consumers over the consumers could switch to another company.

the question is do we really want more regulation? frankly, I find it frightening based on the knowledge our politicians have.

[SithDrummer]

This is online communism.

On a more serious note, it's simply factual that Joe Q. Dipstick's blog isn't drawing nearly the same amount of viewers as, say, Yahoo!. The reasoning behind why the latter are favored may not be totally legitimate, but the fact is that this proposed change is only worse, not better.

Plus, isn't this the amendment whose writer referred to bandwidth as being like a truck that you could fill up only so much per trip?

[Zogo]

Plus, isn't this the amendment whose writer referred to bandwidth as being like a truck that you could fill up only so much per trip?

yes, he thinks the internet works like a pneumatic tube system. he's like 90 years old so I can't blame him..but it shows how things can get messed up.

[Stayne]

What happened was that the internet got recategorized from "telecommunications" (where users were ensured free access) to "information service" (where companies can have thier way with you). That change in categorization of what the internet is brought about the current debate. Didn't we just have a thread on this?


Here are some Daily Show clips that are entertaining (and mildly informative):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DClkE64nFDY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWrDzVdi9M

More info on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

From CSPAN (need realplayer):
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/de/...6_neutrality.rm
This video is a debate between a Google Exec and one of the original creators of the internet. Very much worth watching. (not hosted on c-span.org any more :( )

--------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, from the discussions I've seen it sounds like they are trying to make broadband more like cable television. When you subscribe, you sign up for access to certain sites. You pay more for more access.

The flip side was the discussion on making internet applications/sites pay to be carried. In addition to paying for thier servers, they'd have to pay the ISP to allow thier users to access the site.

It has been construed as a way for ISPs to make more money, essentially. The current contraversy is a byproduct of the internet being recategorized as an information service rather than a telecommunication service. Telecommunication services are protected by common carrier regulations, meaning all packets are treated equal. Now that it is an "information service", common carrier regulations no longer apply and ISPs may determine which packets are carried. That is where the net neutrality debate comes in.

The arguments are essentially to either keep things as they have been or allow service providers to make more money.

Keeping things as they have been has worked really well so far, is essentially what the Google exec. argued. He says that it has allowed people who wish to start a business or a web-based community the freedom to do so. It has allowed developers to test code freely, because anyone with access to the internet can access any site.

It is unclear what the service providers are going to do, but there are a couple of suggestions. One was setting up service to be like cable TV, where a user can subscribe to access to specific sites. If you want full access, you pay more. The other suggestion was to force content providers (e.g., thecatacombs.net) to pay carrying charges in order to be accessible via the ISP. Both of these options drastically limit accessibility of the internet. The second option of requiring carrying charges is possibly the most damaging, as many small businesses and community sites are already paying a lot of money for server hosting. Paying the additional fees of carrying charges might just break the bank.

my point is that if these businesses really screwed the consumers over the consumers could switch to another company.
That is actually not true. Most areas in the US only have one provider. There is no true competition that will keep ISPs in check. Its too bad c-span isn't hosting that video any more, b/c they shoot down that arguement pretty conclusively. The most interesting thing about the video is that both are pretty much in agreement. The only difference is that the inventor doesn't want government involvement if it can be avoided. The Google exec doesn't want gov. involvement either, but he feels that it is necessary to protect the consumer in this case where the gov. already fucked up and recategorized the internet.

[xero]

The argument against net neutrality usually goes something like, "There is no free ride, and bandwidth costs money. Therefore, we want to charge to access big-ticket websites, both from the site, and from users who want to reach it in a timely manner."

What a crock of shit. Last time I checked, I was paying $44.95 a month. That is definitely not a free ride.

Also, that Save The Internet group is a astroturf organization. In fact, there are astroturf organizations on both sides of the issue (pro-net neutrality is cable, anti-net neutrality is DSL, because Telcos control all the pipes, while the cable leases those lines from them already). The one on the other side, in case anybody cares, is called Hands Off My Internet.

If you want to really know how fucked up the net neutrality thing is, go to www.broadbandreports.com. Unlike the two astroturf organizations who are only looking out for their shadow participants, BBR looks out for the consumer, and reports it in ways that reflect what you and I would like to see on our statements each month.

[Cann]

Stayne makes several good points, none more important that this proposed amendment will in essence create a monopoly for ISP companies all over the country. I might even go so far as to say that one or two companies would monopolize the [I]entire nation, w/ the exception major cities - all rural residents would baiscally get shafted.

Perhaps w/n a few years more companies would start up and the problem would gradually be solved, but that could take up to five or ten years. The scary thing here is this damn thing could actually pass through congress... as stated above the majority of politicians and (or) a percentage of the people will feel this is beneficial to the consumer.

[eyez]

dumb question: is this only in the U.S?

[Zogo]

That is actually not true. Most areas in the US only have one provider. There is no true competition that will keep ISPs in check.

which places do and which places don't have more than one provider?

if there wasn't so much redtape to allow more competition in the neighborhoods in the first place then there would be more competition. gov't regulation causes a problem..so the only solution is to regulate further. all the redtape is the reason why it'll take FTTH 100 years to be installed across the nation.

I'll almost always trust the market before gov't regulation. I've seen it screw up too many things in the past.

dumb question: is this only in the U.S?

I think so..I don't think the US can write laws on how the Internet lines are run in foreign countries..

If the UN took over the Internet..that'd be a different story.

[Cann]

which places do and which places don't have more than one provider?


I might even go so far as to say that one or two companies would monopolize the entire nation, w/ the exception major cities - all rural residents would baiscally get shafted.


sure this may have been a bit of overexaggeration but it's at least partly true... I'm not sure you realize how many folks are still in the sticks and can (at best) only get 1 affordable provider - there are still those who don't even have access if you can even believe it. All of this has been stated under the assumption that we're talking about cable [cause I guess everyone can get dial-up and tech. access but who would pay extra to access more sites on slow-ass dialup??] ... and that satellite companies are not included - way too expensive and only a small percentage can afford it.

[Zogo]

sure this may have been a bit of overexaggeration but it's at least partly true... I'm not sure you realize how many folks are still in the sticks and can (at best) only get 1 affordable provider - there are still those who don't even have access if you can even believe it. All of this has been stated under the assumption that we're talking about cable [cause I guess everyone can get dial-up and tech. access but who would pay extra to access more sites on slow-ass dialup??] ... and that satellite companies are not included - way too expensive and only a small percentage can afford it.

AFAIK the last section of the US known to be populated was wired for telephone access somewhere around 2003. it was some isolated area with 15 people living in it and they were using CB radios to communicate.

is it my problem if someone in the sticks can't get premium internet? I'd have even better internet if I'd move into a big metro area. I doubt the people in those areas are losing sleep.

and gov't protecting the prices? having the price hang around $55/month is "helping" some poor bastard?

[Yesbama]

Wait, what possible good can come from this for the consumer?
If a telecom company monopolizes internet access can't they do whatever they want and charge whatever they want (like insurance companies)?

[Zogo]

it'd never go to a monopoly unless the gov't had a hand in it.

[Stayne]

Zogo, the issue isn't with dial-up companies. dial-upers have always had several options for service providers. The issue is with broadband. And by far, the majority of the US that has access to broadband only has access to 1 provider. I don't have a figure or report in front of me, but I'm taking the Google exec's word on it. He wasn't challenged on it in the debate aired on C-SPAN.

Again, the issue arose because internet service was recategorized. I'm guessing that there were some telecom lobbyists involved in that. And, although I don't trust the government to do what is best for the consumer, I only trust big business to do what's best for itself. Every scenario I've heard involves limiting access based upon what users pay or what content providers pay. Either way is limiting something that has not been limited for the past decade. I see no good coming from it.

I recently came across this at my favorite political blog. Thought I'd share:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/13/ted-kennedy-supports-net-neutrality/

I agree with you, zogo, on a lot of issues. This isn't one of them. What I've read and seen suggests to me that turning consumer access over to big business bends consumers and content providers over the barrel.

[hawk]

On a more serious note, it's simply factual that Joe Q. Dipstick's blog isn't drawing nearly the same amount of viewers as, say, Yahoo!. The reasoning behind why the latter are favored may not be totally legitimate, but the fact is that this proposed change is only worse, not better.

The problem is that without complete net neutrality, who's to say yahoo! can't sign a contract with Verizon to give exclusive rights for searching and say no other search engines will be available to Verizon users. We can sit here and say, well the market will correct itself. Maybe, maybe not. For a lot of people in America there is only one broadband service provider. It's their way or dial-up.

This idea completely goes again the whole idea of the internet, a place that is made for free complete information access.

[Zogo]

Zogo, the issue isn't with dial-up companies. dial-upers have always had several options for service providers. The issue is with broadband. And by far, the majority of the US that has access to broadband only has access to 1 provider. I don't have a figure or report in front of me, but I'm taking the Google exec's word on it. He wasn't challenged on it in the debate aired on C-SPAN.

is it the right of a customer to get exceptional internet service wherever they are? I don't think it is. that's like me demanding that I get a certain number of channels on my TV set and demanding congress enact laws to guarantee it.

one of my points is that the REASON there is only one provider in many areas is because of the red tape preventing another company from entering the market without first having to jump many hurdles..this red tape itself is caused by gov't regulation in the first place. so gov't regulation causes a problem (lack of competition) and to fix it they only know how to regulate it more (net neutrality.) the gov't will screw up the internet in the future the more they regulate it I guarantee it.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/13/ted-kennedy-supports-net-neutrality/

I was laughing when he starts talking about "freedom of speech."

the republicans and democrats (FEC) are aggressively trying to regulate campaigning and blogging online and they're talking about free speech! the more gov't gets into the internet the more they're going to make laws about what you can and can't do..

I am so sick of doublespeak by politicians and the FEC should be destroyed.

[sparkz]

If this shit passes, I'll officially be pissed-the-fuck-off. It's motivated by nothing other than corporate greed. People pay for bandwith at the user end, and people pay for bandwith at the hosting end. This is seriously fucked up.

[Stayne]

Zogo, i must be missing the premise of your arguments. Essentially all i'm hearing is that government involvement is bad. Is there more to it than that? Something about how the current red tape is keeping there from being more broadband providers.... I'm not sure. Can you please explain better? :confused:

My arguement is that yes, governement involvement is bad, but corporate involvement promises to be worse. As it is, users already pay for access (by quantity of bandwidth) and content providers already pay to have thier content hosted and carried (also by quantity of bandwidth/month). The corporate interest is to then charge a carrying fee to be picked up by either the consumer, the content provider, or both.

The internet shouldn't be compared to television. TV channels and internet sites are two completely different things. If the internet is treated like TV, then, like TV, only the wealthy will be able to provide content (put up websites). This move is completely contrary to the freedom that has reigned online over the past decade in which innovative products (e.g., mozilla, phpbb, mirc, etc.) have been able to be tested and finally used by a large number of people. The corporate plan, as I've seen it spelled out, will make that kind of freedom to test and experiment more costly and therefor less likely.

The internet should either be recategorized as a "telecommunication", thereby avoiding this whole issue, or be protected from carrying fees, i.e., net neutrality.

[Zogo]

Zogo, i must be missing the premise of your arguments. Essentially all i'm hearing is that government involvement is bad. Is there more to it than that? Something about how the current red tape is keeping there from being more broadband providers.... I'm not sure. Can you please explain better? :confused:

well you pointed to the problem of there being only one cable provider in an area and that because of this monopoly..customers would have no recourse for selecting another.

one of my points is that the reason there usually can only be one cable provider in an area is due to franchise agreements with local governments.

any time a local gov't gives control of something to ONE company you know that competition will be stifled.

My arguement is that yes, governement involvement is bad, but corporate involvement promises to be worse.

based on what previously? gov't always has the potential to do more damage than a corporation no matter how large. corporations can't make laws..gov't can.

As it is, users already pay for access (by quantity of bandwidth) and content providers already pay to have thier content hosted and carried (also by quantity of bandwidth/month). The corporate interest is to then charge a carrying fee to be picked up by either the consumer, the content provider, or both.

yes, I know that circumstances sound bad..but one of my points was that if this was really a free market then any corporation would be frightened to try and pull that..instead because they are gov't sponsored monopolies they know they can get away with it.

The internet shouldn't be compared to television. TV channels and internet sites are two completely different things. If the internet is treated like TV, then, like TV, only the wealthy will be able to provide content (put up websites).

yes, they're different but they run on the same line from the same company and they're both services that you are paying for.

the distinction you're making between a web page and a TV channel is true on a minor level but really you have to be wealthy to do either on a big scale. until every US citizen is guaranteed a PC to use at their leisure and their own domain name I won't buy the comparison.

and don't forget that certain channels on your TV are a lot more important than others..if I wanted to I could get on my local public station and take part in some of the stuff they do..I don't care about it though really. you don't have to be a zillionaire to play a part.

This move is completely contrary to the freedom that has reigned online over the past decade in which innovative products (e.g., mozilla, phpbb, mirc, etc.) have been able to be tested and finally used by a large number of people.

sure you can find very free, altruistic and even socialistic/communistic things on the Internet. but don't forget that the Internet has many areas where the barter system prevails such as craigslist..or pure capitalism such as ebay and amazon. I think net neutrality supporters look at this as some kind of utopian law..the politicians and writers have been crafting this one carefully I can see based on that it has bipartisan approval.

The corporate plan, as I've seen it spelled out, will make that kind of freedom to test and experiment more costly and therefor less likely.

this plan is being helped by the gov't..so it's a marriage between gov't and corporation..it would never take place otherwise.

The internet should either be recategorized as a "telecommunication", thereby avoiding this whole issue, or be protected from carrying fees, i.e., net neutrality.

I think media should be deregulated thereby bypassing gov't.

[hames]

If this happens, I'm gonna have to kill myself.

[Stayne]

I think media should be deregulated thereby bypassing gov't.

I assume you are including the internet in the category of media to be deregulated. If so, AMEN!


(One dissadvantage to complete deregulation might be that advertisers would also have complete freedom of speech. So, jackass alternative medicine scam artists Kevin Trudeau (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05252/568248.stm) could really have thier way with the ignorant american public. Even with regulation, he and many others get away with highway robbery.)

[MV8]

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

Sign up...stay informed. :)

[Zogo]

I assume you are including the internet in the category of media to be deregulated. If so, AMEN!

yes

(One dissadvantage to complete deregulation might be that advertisers would also have complete freedom of speech. So, jackass alternative medicine scam artists Kevin Trudeau (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05252/568248.stm) could really have thier way with the ignorant american public. Even with regulation, he and many others get away with highway robbery.)

or an advantage if you get annoyed by *bleeps* and mosaics blocking out exquisite boobage.

plus you can laugh at everyone being swindled by kevin trudeau.