Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 68356	2006-04-25 12:35:00	Net Neutrality Under Fire!	motorbyclist (188)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
449376	2006-04-25 12:35:00	yello, i was looking around the net, and whilst reading a rant ( . com/index . php" target="_blank">cad-comic . com) by a webcomic authour, i was alerted to a bill ( . pcmag . com/article2/0,1895,1953085,00 . asp" target="_blank">www . pcmag . com) being discussed in US congress . now i know it seems it does not directly affect us, but if this bill passes it would greatly harm internet users world wide . save the internet! (http://www . savetheinternet . com/) :help: the internet was intended to be neutral, anything (legal) goes, at whatever speed your network allows . :thumbs: The propsed bill is to allow ISP's and other large corporations to alter the speed at which certain sites operate . naturally, this means whoever pays them the most receives the fastest connections . also, these large companies are sure to activley contribute to the US senators campaigns . :horrified the point being that some sites will load more slowly, so your local library's website would have a 2kbps download speed while books & more would have as much as your 3 . 5Mbps broadband can get, because they outbid your library . this could even lead to sites being unreachable as they are not offered any bandwidth because they didnt pay . :groan: it is my understanding WE pay for the isp's bill, not the content providers, otherwise all those free internet joys out there, your blog, fav comic/show, could all become dead or hideously expensive (and then dead) . how does this effect us? well what if your site had a large american audience? thats how . and the bill may spread to other countries aswell . many people live off the net, many people enjoy the net, how would you like it to be limited? phone companies are desperately trying to stop voice over IP, which includes things like skype . streaming video etc would be affected . It would be just like if Telecom won monopoly over NZ's phone lines: soaring prices . there has been a bid to protect net neutrality, but it failed ( . pcmag . com/article2/0,1895,1946947,00 . asp" target="_blank">www . pcmag . com) :( we need a neutral net . ( . pcmag . com/article2/0,1895,1936161,00 . asp" target="_blank">www . pcmag . com) wouldnt you say? /rant	motorbyclist (188)
449377	2006-04-25 13:30:00	Once again America wants to do something incredibly stupid. typical. Why am I not surprised??	Agent_24 (57)
449378	2006-04-25 13:34:00	Once again America wants to do something incredibly stupid. typical. Why am I not surprised?? I agree with you there	stu161204 (123)
449379	2006-04-25 22:36:00	Haven't the US ISPs already tried to extort money from the major content providers & got told where to stick it?	Greven (91)
449380	2006-04-25 22:56:00	AOL (Another Obvious Lie) is trying to offer two-tiered accounts for e-mail . . . . 1) those who pay a premium, get ALL their mail thru without any spam control or filtering 2) all others get their mail tested for words/phrases and unrecognized sites and then get thrown out as spam . The people sending for the #1 option above, get high speed access, those on #2 get slower, almost dial-up speeds . AOL is the bad player here, not the whole US . Verizon told AOL to pound sand, as did a few other providers and companies like Google . Stay tuned for more exciting action and outtakes from the world of Big $$$'s .	SurferJoe46 (51)
449381	2006-04-25 23:18:00	BTW: the original post by motorbicyclist invokes two aspects and blends them into one thread . . . it has elements that must be considered seperately . . . . . . my first post was on allowed internet speeds and penalties for some who won't or can't pay for special treatment, however . . . . . . . . . . . . Neutrality on the net is a totally different situation (sorry for the extended info here), but . . . . . . . . The actual reference about neutrality was along the lines of freedom of speech, and not network speeds . . . it's the political content over which they were complaining . The Democrats and Republicans are going at this hammer and tongs . . . the Dems want to filter and restrict freedom of speech to allow NO anti-Democratic slurs and rants to exist on blogs, webpages and sites . The Republicans want to allow any and all free speech to be online . . . even close to election time . Campaigning for a certain period of time just before the elections is illegal, and this is probably what the heat is from . . . the internet can not be restricted or controlled with the rules the way they are currently written and they are afraid that some blog might change someone's mind at the last moment . Here's the rub: it's getting close to the "let's find a likely candidate to run against the other side" time of year, just about 18 months away from the next presidential campaign . Bush cannot run again, as he's a lame duck and used up his turn at bat, and they have to elect from the untested waters in both camps . The Democrats (liberals) want to deny the use of the internet to those who want to freely debate the pros and cons of the politicians and parties involved . . . the Democrats want to take that freedom away and monitor the internet (like China) to keep negative reports (true or false) totally off the internet . It's a political football . . . and it really should not harm NZ in the foggiest . . . . . this is just the Democrats/Socialist party trying to stop all speech that might harm them under control . :blush:	SurferJoe46 (51)
449382	2006-04-26 07:38:00	Can we have some evidence? Sounds like you've got 2 argumenets confused. What we are talking about here is the large teleco companies wanting control over what data they send and at what speeds. Right now there job is to merely move all data without bias, i.e. net neutrality. If this bill passes then telco companies will be able to send some websites at faster speeds and some websites at slower speed, or not at all. The current bill is sponsered by 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat. A Democrat amendmant which would have ensured net neutrality was defeated. Another Democrat Act is in the Senate to ensure net neutrality. Sounds like the democrats are doing a good job to me. The issue you've bought up is a completely different one to this topic, and perhaps a read of the link provided by motorbyclist will enlighten you. www.savetheinternet.com	imarubberducky (7230)
449383	2006-04-26 18:09:00	A quote from that link: "They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data . They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors . These companies have a new vision for the Internet . Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and a leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road . " OK . . who do you think will get the speed and who gets the slow-down? You are wallowing in the obvious . . this is a politically-charged attack on opponents of political equality in the guise of "help keep the internet free" mumbo-jumbo . Don't fall for it . When the political machine gets done killing the opposition, the laws will still be on the books even though their primary purpose will have been fulfilled . He who controls (or limits the opposition) via speed and reliability of etherspace controls the jello-brained "superviseable" knee-jerk idiots who think they are getting protection of their "rights" . The media here in the US is totally Democrat controlled with their pandering to the Hollywood and MacNewspaper idealists . If you don't feel the ground swell of pending doom and reorginization of the ethernet by those who purport to be on the side of the good guys, then you are already dead . A fool and his internet are soon parted . more . . . . . . . . "The telephone and cable companies are filling up congressional campaign coffers and hiring high-priced lobbyists . They've set up "Astroturf"* groups like "Hands Off the Internet" to confuse the issue and give the appearance of grassroots support . Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act . The primary bill in the House is called the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006" and is sponsored by Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas), Rep Fred Upton (R-Mich . ), Rep . Charles Pickering (R-Miss . ) and Rep . Bobby Rush (D-Ill . ) . The current version of the COPE Act includes watered-down net neutrality provisions that are essentially meaningless . An amendment offered in a key subcommittee by Rep . Ed Markey (D-Mass . ), which would have instituted real net neutrality requirements, was defeated after intense industry lobbying against it . " (*Astroturf" is used on sporting fields . . . it looks like grass . . . but it's plastic . . . a good parallel) and now . . . . these guys are all fence hoppers for the Hollywood money: Joe Barton (R-Texas), Rep Fred Upton (R-Mich . ), Rep . Charles Pickering (R-Miss . ) and Rep . Bobby Rush (D-Ill . ) . . they jump to the same gun: Hollywood . The fact that there is a Republican name on their monikers does not indicate their allegience . Since the current administration is so full of strife and discontent, many in sheep-like clothing are really industry sell-outs to the money of the media . This does not bode well for the US . . in the terms of www; ie the internet . If you fall for this ploy, NZ too will feel the punch . . but it will be too late . "This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now . Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good . " . This is smoke and mirrors . . . and Don't pay any attention to the man over there behind the curtains . So, finally, what looks good and the right thing to do is really a screen to cover a really insidious attack on the world . . . but the initial attempt is to prop up their own agenda . Once that's done . . . look out!	SurferJoe46 (51)
449384	2006-04-27 00:08:00	Can we just clarify, do you support the idea of net neutrality, i.e. the idea that all data should go at the same speeds and the large telco companies and isps should not be able to charge content providers to give their content higher priority?	imarubberducky (7230)
449385	2006-04-27 01:40:00	Update (news.com.com)	CYaBro (73)
1 2