Net Neutrality

[BongoBob]

http://www.cad-comic.com/#1088

 

For the lazy...

 

Taken from Ctrl+Alt+Del...

 

Net Neutrality

02:29 AM - Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - by Tim

 

I'd been hearing about this Net Neutrality thing for the past week, but at first I dismissed it as another one of those unfounded scare rumors that sweeps through those ridiculous email forwards and gets everyone all worked up. I mean, who the **** is going to try and regulate the internet?

 

Well, apparently some of these conservative, pompous politicians are giving it a shot, by attempting to give a few major corporations (who no doubt have provided generous campaign contributions to the Representatives involved) exclusive rights to deliver services via the internet.

 

Basically this means that the large companies like Verizon and Com****suckingcast would have, at their discretion, the right to choose what web content loads quickest for you. And guess how that decision is made? That's what, whatever web content makes them the most money. And if a website doesn't pay their exorbitant fees? It could load up slower than dial-up. Or not at all.

 

Dreamt of starting an online business? Opening a t-shirt shop online, or putting our your artwork for others to see? Under this legislation you can kiss that **** goodbye, unless you're willing to fork over cash to the big communications companies so they'll allow your stuff to be seen.

 

As a self-employed cartoonist, a small business owner who makes his living thanks to the internet, you can imagine this concept hits close to home. The internet is the greatest tool we've ever had for getting around these ultra-rich, conservative fatasses who control everything.

 

Before the internet, if you wanted your work to get out there, you would have to submit it over, and over, and over again, to countless editors who were going to decide whether your idea was good enough to reach the masses. Who the **** were they to decide? Screw 'em.

 

The internet cuts these large corporations out and they know it. And it drives them nuts. You know what? Good. They don't know what they're doing anyway. Remember when MTV used to be Music Television? Now they showcase music for forty minutes out of the whole day, and they don't even play the whole ****ing videos anymore. It's some jackass droning on about whatever superficial horse**** they're trying to brainwash young America into buying. But thank god they don't play the whole videos, because the only music they play are whatever manufactured crap the big record labels are paying them to play. Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

Badger Badger Badger may have annoyed the **** out of you. But that came directly from the creators, to the masses. There was no middle-man in a cheap suit saying "umm, well, I think maybe the badgers should be wearing FUBAR, and the snake, could we replace the snake with an asian minority? We're trying to appeal to our sponsors. And I'm worried that the mushroom infers illegal activities, so let's use these new Nike Air Jordans instead. And..." **** that. There's a lot of **** on the internet, but I'd take sifting through the crap to find the good stuff, over having the crap be the only thing offered to me, any day of the week.

 

This legislation could be a serious issue. You decide.

 

/rant off.

 

I'm with Tim. I really thought this was one of those bull**** email chains, but I really hope that our government won't be so stupid. And don't think that if it get's passed that it won't stay in the US. It would soon spread out everywhere.

 

[Jeff]

Yeah, I had heard about this, it had better not get passed. I kind of doubt it will, I just can't see this happening. It's just too rediculous.

[Mike Windu]

We'll find a way around it.

[manoman81]

Aren't there laws against this? Oh wait. I forgot where I live. I'm really beginning to think that these old farts that can't keep up with the new tech are afraid that they will lose their posts. Looks like I'll be writing my congressman.

[DarkStarMojo]

This is just another attempt for a small group of media "elites" to influence the way we think so they can sell us more products and it's the same reason that most news stations and newspapers, if not downright opinionated when they should be unbiased in their presentations of the facts, are pro-democrat or pro-republican, subtly influencing their viewers' opinions on the issues and getting them to vote for or against a particular party. But this issue is not only about freedom of speech and safeguarding it so you, me, and everyone else can still have the right to voice our opinions but it also brings to light the issue of unregulated lobbying in Congress. Once again, lobbyists have too much power to buy off senators and basically screw over everyone who doesn't contribute to the size of their pocketbooks. I think it's time we not only make it known the internet MUST remain free but Congress had better pass MAJOR lobbying reform bills or else they can kiss their jobs goodbye. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like people are very motivated to make a difference nowadays .

[toms]

Oh dear.

 

Anyone any idea how this will affect people outside the USA once it gets passed?

 

(cos we all know common sense and public opinion will hold no weight against big business).

[Tokarev]

Net Neutrality Shot Down in the US

 

Tiered networks seriously harm Internet development say Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and others

 

Net neutrality has become a great deal of concern, for Internet back-bone telcos, ISPs, and users alike. The idea is that network providers should be neutral with their services -- the wires should not care what data is being transmitted. It has been argued that maintaining network neutrality will enable innovations and new ideas to take place, fostering growth and development.

 

Many companies, including Google and Microsoft, support net neutrality. In some countries, such as the Japan, UK, South Korea and many others, laws are in place to protect net neutrality. In the US however, there is no long and recently, some large telcos, organizations and government bodies are opposing net neutrality. Cisco for example, benefits from tiered networks and the problem of network discrimination and strongly opposes network neutrality. The Bell family of telcos argues that they should be able to regulate what data traverses their networks and ultimately the Internet, and different prices should be in place for different types of network requirements.

 

This week, the House Committee rejected a bill called the Markey Amendment (named after Democratic representative Edward Markey) to maintain network neutrality, allowing large telcos to charge extra for bandwidth usage or date types. Many telcos are looking to create a tiered network, one that has slow bandwidth and one that has high bandwidth for such things as video. Unfortunately, many companies are now afraid that this will allow telcos to restrict the low bandwidth tier to a point where development is so restricted, companies will have no choice but to pay up to move to a different tier.

 

According to the Markey Amendment, network neutrality is designed prevent telcos "not to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet."

[Sabretooth]

Oooh... I sense a dark and underground future for us forum-goers. Because if they take over the internet, we lose it. And if we lose it, we turn rebels and regain it. I see a bright, bright future, everyone! Liberation of us oppressed peoples!

 

On a more serious note, I wouldn't care less.

[Samuel Dravis]

This is simply a way to sqeeze more money out of people. Let's see how they're not getting paid:

 

Get paid for the upload (hosting)?: check

Google pays them quite a lot for hosting.

 

Get paid for the download (end user)?: check

My ISP gets paid for my downloads, and they pay SWBell.

 

What, exactly, are they complaining about? They're complaining about not being paid again for services they've already been paid for? What? Oh, that's right. It's essentially a bribe - pay us or we'll purposefully downgrade your site's packet speeds (right now they go at full speed, save for some filesharing throttling). What's that called again? Extortion. They don't need any other reason than greed, and this legislation being killed is just a result of some of their money going into a few pockets in the House. I don't expect the politicians who supposedly represent "the people" to actually do so anymore. They represent special interest groups, and nothing more. Their loyalty is to those who pay them the most. Feels good, doesn't it?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

If this is implemented, well...

 

ANONYMOUS DOES NOT FORGIVE! I need my 4chan, anime fansubs, YTMND (IMG tags on the forums are back on), and forum invasions like I need water.

[Char Ell]

First, let me say that I support net neutrality. I pay my Internet service provide (ISP) a monthly fee for my broadband service and I don't think I should be penalized or made to pay extra to take full advantage of my broadband service that I already pay for.

 

I think the real rub with Internet neutrality is between the ISP's. Some of the big ISP's don't like the fact that they have to carry what they feel is a disproportionate amount of Internet traffic originating from other big ISP's or even smaller ISP's. They claim the other ISP's are taking up too much of their network's bandwidth and so should pay for it. So say for example ISP Alpha transports 60% of the traffic going to ISP Beta while ISP Beta only transports 10% of ISP Alpha's traffic. ISP Alpha naturally wants ISP Beta to pay more money because it carries more of its traffic but ISP Beta doesn't necessarily want to do that. Anyway, I don't know how valid that example is but I think it's at least a rough fit for the situation.

 

I think if the telcos get their way and start to provide tiered levels of bandwidth it could very well put a crimp on Internet growth. IMO the telcos are jumping the gun on this. They don't have enough addicted Internet users to make this fly right now. If they're smart they'll wait until they get a serious customer base in hi-bandwidth killer apps like IPTV.

[toms]

But then surely some form of users/bandwidth priceing structure/tax would be the best solution... not allowing ISP A to make stuff to ISP B users go slower.