Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-29-2006, 04:07 PM
viscousmemories's Avatar
viscousmemories viscousmemories is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMXXLVII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 9
Default Save the 'Net

I just came across a disturbing op-ed in the Times, about big telecom's massive push to institute tiered pricing for Internet access.
Last year, the chief executive of what is now AT&T sent shock waves through cyberspace when he asked why Web sites should be able to "use my pipes free." Internet service providers would like to be able to charge Web sites for access to their customers. Web sites that could not pay the new fees would be accessible at a slower speed, or perhaps not be accessible at all.

A tiered Internet poses a threat at many levels. Service providers could, for example, shut out Web sites whose politics they dislike. Even if they did not discriminate on the basis of content, access fees would automatically marginalize smaller, poorer Web sites.
Fortunately there are some heavy hitters supporting "net neutrality" as well, including some strange bedfellows.
But the other side of the debate has some large corporate backers, too, like Google and Microsoft, which could be hit by access fees since they depend on the Internet service providers to put their sites on the Web. It also has support from political groups of all persuasions. The president of the Christian Coalition, which is allied with Moveon.org on this issue, recently asked, "What if a cable company with a pro-choice board of directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to encourage pro-life activities?"
For more information and to find out how to help, see:


Save the Net Now
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-29-2006, 04:20 PM
livius drusus's Avatar
livius drusus livius drusus is offline
Admin of THIEVES and SLUGABEDS
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: LVCCCLXXII
Images: 5
Default Re: Save the 'Net

I read that op-ed earlier this morning. I'm thrilled to see such heavy-hitters advocating net neutrality, and this bit: "Last week, a bipartisan bill favoring net neutrality, sponsored by James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, won a surprisingly lopsided vote in the House Judiciary Committee." -- bodes very well indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-29-2006, 04:29 PM
The Jesus Lawyer's Avatar
The Jesus Lawyer The Jesus Lawyer is offline
Ana Haneek Omak We Abook
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Same place as before.
Posts: MMCXVIII
Default Re: Save the 'Net

i think it is less important to contact congress and more important to sing the praises of the internet to your friends and neighbours. i never let anybody bad-mouth the net without a fight. i always sing its praises. i mean, petitioning a government that does what it wants anyhow is probably less effective than selling more and more people on the benefits of having a free internet, therefore making more people angry when they try to take it away.

michael :)
__________________
i see 11:11 - www.11-11.tv
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-29-2006, 04:57 PM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMXV
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Save the 'Net

This is exactly why it is important for people to really understand the nature of the telco infrastructure, and the history and legal standing of telco companies.

Nobody is using your fucking pipes for free, AT&T, and the only reason any lay person would believe such a thing is that they don't understand how AT&T and their demon spawn the RBOCs got "their" pipes in the first place. They got "their" pipes through a long, long history of public subsidies, rights of way, and other entitlements, and they have just fucking NEVER held up their end of any deal of any sort with any consistency.

Waah, waah, you lying, thieving welfare queens.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-29-2006, 08:49 PM
MonCapitan2002's Avatar
MonCapitan2002 MonCapitan2002 is offline
Servant of the Dark Lord
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMMXXXII
Blog Entries: 12
Images: 1
Default Re: Save the 'Net

When tiered internet becomes a reality, I will go offline.
__________________

Allan Glenn. 1984-2005 RIP
:countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep:
Feel the Bern!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-29-2006, 09:10 PM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Cmurb!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LVMDCLXXX
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: Save the 'Net

:whoa: Are you admitting to agreeing with Google?



:wink:
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-30-2006, 02:10 AM
MonCapitan2002's Avatar
MonCapitan2002 MonCapitan2002 is offline
Servant of the Dark Lord
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMMXXXII
Blog Entries: 12
Images: 1
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Huh? I am not sure what your comment is in reference to. Do they believe tiered internet will become a reality?
__________________

Allan Glenn. 1984-2005 RIP
:countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep:
Feel the Bern!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-30-2006, 03:49 AM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Cmurb!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LVMDCLXXX
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Google opposes the concept. (See above) :sigh:
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-30-2006, 04:19 AM
MonCapitan2002's Avatar
MonCapitan2002 MonCapitan2002 is offline
Servant of the Dark Lord
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Gender: Bender
Posts: VMMMXXXII
Blog Entries: 12
Images: 1
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Oh. Duh. :dopey: I guess Google and I can agree on some things.
__________________

Allan Glenn. 1984-2005 RIP
:countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep::countsheep:
Feel the Bern!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-31-2006, 08:59 PM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMXV
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Har. Somebody's hiring blog-spammers now.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-10-2006, 11:08 PM
Legs's Avatar
Legs Legs is offline
silky...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: XOXLIV&VMXOX
Images: 1479
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Commentary: Keep the Internet neutral, fair and free

Most Americans believe that if you play fair and work hard, you'll get ahead. But this notion is threatened by legislation passed Thursday night by the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow Internet service providers to play favorites among different Web sites.

Here's a real world example that shows how this would work. Let's say you call Joe's Pizza and the first thing you hear is a message saying you'll be connected in a minute or two, but if you want, you can be connected to Pizza Hut right away. That's not fair, right? You called Joe's and want some Joe's pizza. Well, that's how some telecommunications executives want the Internet to operate, with some Web sites easier to access than others. For them, this would be a money-making regime.

Next stop is the Senate. If this becomes law, your Yahoo Inc. e-mail account could operate more slowly, unless Yahoo ponies up big bucks to the major telecommunication companies that bring the Internet into your home. By the same token, your craigslist classifieds (I'm the Craig from craigslist) could grind to a halt, unless my company pays up. This is not fair.

more here
__________________
--
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-15-2006, 04:11 AM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMXV
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Save the 'Net

This is a pretty good discussion on network neutrality that was linked at Tech Dirt.

I hadn't really given too much thought to the vast potential for fucking up the implementation should it become law, but now I'm going to as soon as my ass is unkicked.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-19-2006, 05:16 PM
livius drusus's Avatar
livius drusus livius drusus is offline
Admin of THIEVES and SLUGABEDS
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: LVCCCLXXII
Images: 5
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Check out Amazon's Paul Misener kick Mike McCurry's shilling ass in a net neutrality debate here.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-02-2006, 06:13 PM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMXV
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Ho ho. Resurrecting again to present this compelling argument from Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, explaining why he voted against a net neutrality amendment.

My mistake, I have come to find out, was in thinking that the internet was like a truck, where you could just load stuff up on it, see. But it's not.

See, the internet is made out of tubes, like those tubes they have at the drive-through windows at banks. And then there are these companies, and you can order all these movies on the internet, and they send, like, ten movies. And you don't even have to pay.

It's getting so that a man can not even have his staff send him the internet without having to wait like a whole day for it to get there! Because it's stuck behind all those movies in the tube. Why should my family have to wait in a tube behind all those movies?!?!?!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-02-2006, 06:45 PM
Ari's Avatar
Ari Ari is online now
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMCMXC
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Although hard, if not impossible, IMO there are a number of companies that really need to be boycotted. AT&T seems to be proving time and time again they aren't to be trusted and are in it for the dollar even if it screws the consumer.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-29-2006, 03:19 AM
viscousmemories's Avatar
viscousmemories viscousmemories is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMXXLVII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 9
Default Re: Save the 'Net

I just saw a really disturbing commercial on Comedy Central attacking net neutrality. It was so ludicrous I thought it was a joke -- after all, it was during an episode of South Park and they'd had a spoof commercial about "Cherokee Hair Tampons" earlier -- but turns out it's for reals. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association would have you believe that all the "mumbo jumbo" about net neutrality is "nothing more than a scheme by the multibillion-dollar Silicon Valley tech companies to get you, the consumer, to pay more for their services". So now AT&T and Time Warner are the little guy?

You can see the commercial yourself here:

http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?ContentID=3526
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-29-2006, 03:49 AM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMXV
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Wow.

I even looked to see if they had an actual argument to that effect on their website, and I couldn't find one.

They just pulled that directly out of their asses.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-29-2006, 04:01 AM
RareBear's Avatar
RareBear RareBear is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Baldwin, NY (Long Island)
Posts: CCLIV
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Although I'm liberal in general and a pinko of sorts, I think net neutraility is misguided. The internet has become a virtual welfare state where so much is free that people feel entitled to it. Guess what? When everything is free there is no incentive to progress to something else. Frankly I hate the net the way it has wound up. Web content is not free-it is advertising supported for the most part and I would be willing to face a new "value" model than stay the same.

It's kinda like this:

Pretend it's 1986 and the world hasn't yet heard of the net. Presume for a moment that everyone has an original IBM PC (8086 processor). Then all of a sudden, a major manufacturer announces the creation of a 386 processor that is many time faster. You want one. You go to get one and are told, the government felt it wasn't fair to let you buy a 386 becuase your neighbor down the street is not ready to afford one. How would you react?

I think this is similar. And that the government should not be inserted to impose artificial price controls. Competition and innovation will produce new stuff that will be worth the money and we'll find ways to pay for it just like we did to replace our computers and software several times through our lives already. Today's internt is not the destination of the information techniology revolution--it is a start. Let's not create the very impediments to our own revolution and keep it in it's current state of stagnation.

Change is good--even if it seems to hurt at first.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-29-2006, 04:35 AM
Plant Woman Plant Woman is offline
Done
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: XMCLVI
Blog Entries: 2
Images: 26
Default Re: Save the 'Net

If that happens my little informative site goes bye-bye as it wouldn't have the funds to sustain it for long.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-29-2006, 04:37 AM
Ari's Avatar
Ari Ari is online now
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMCMXC
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Save the 'Net

I don't see anti-net-neutrality as moving forward.

It isn't a price control but an attempt to keep all packets at the same priority level.

One danger with allowing companies to control packet priority level is they could reduce the speed or even cut off competition's products. Say AT&T comes out with an internet music store and you use AT&T's internet but want to download music from iTunes. AT&T could force you to download iTunes music at 56k speeds (unless you upgrade to their new "neutral" service, giving you normal internet access for a premium price). Etc.

A good net neutrality bill would be pro-competition.

Edit to add: It would be like microsoft making windows run any none microsoft program poorly or not at all unless a.) Those companies pay microsoft money to run on their OS or b.) you pay extra to get a windows that runs non-microsoft programs.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-29-2006, 05:00 AM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMXV
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Quote:
Originally Posted by RareBear
Change is good--even if it seems to hurt at first.
What kind of change are you talking about?

There are any number of net neutrality issues--bit discrimination, port blocking, attaching devices, etc.. Each involves different aspects of NN.

The general principles on which the internet was built and has grown involve treating traffic in a neutral way. That is, when you become a part of the internet, you route traffic regardless of protocol, content, requester, or provider. Barring traffic that damages the network, all bits are created equal.

Both the end user and the content provider are already paying for their bandwidth, so bit discrimination (which is what most seem to be referring to when they talk about NN) is just the telcos finding a way to get paid a third time for the same traffic. (Or a fourth, if you want to count the subsidies that paid for those pipes in the first place.) I can't imagine how that would help advance innovation or be good for consumers in any way.

If you're talking about routing different services differently, there are more compelling arguments for that, BUT this depends on accurately predicting usage and it depends on having some oversight to ensure that the de facto 'owners' of the (heavily subsidized) networks are not simply thinking of new ways to fuck over their competition (like, say, VoIP). First, capacity provisioning is something that's very difficult to do and something that telcos screw up all the time. Despite super-badass cutting edge AI systems and armies of CP engineers at their disposal, most telcos still can't (or won't) even get basic POTS service right--for reasons ranging from incompetence to good old fashioned greed. ILECs are notoriously incompetent and corrupt, and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

I'm really not sure what sort of innovation you're talking about or what sort of network neutrality you think would stand in its way, but I can't think of any way in which I think the current backbone providers can be trusted.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-29-2006, 05:31 AM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMXV
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Save the 'Net

I just realized I missed a pretty sweet illustration right up in here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RareBear
Pretend it's 1986 and the world hasn't yet heard of the net.
OK. I had heard of the net in 1986, so maybe I remember some stuff that others don't in this regard, but well into the early 90s, the telcos actually had policies prohibiting attaching a modem on home telephone lines.

People did it anyway, but you had to be careful not to mention it, or they'd--I dunno--do something. While I can't remember the remedies they'd take if they found out you were in violation, I can assure you that the phone companies were pretty clear about the prohibition.

This went on until, IIRC, the mid-90s or thereabouts, depending on the phone company, and it wasn't until the internet was very widely adopted that the prohibitions were dropped.

That's a perfect example. The principle that you can attach any device to your lines, as long as it doesn't harm the network, is fundamental to NN. And the phone companies did exactly that for as long as they were able to get away with it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (09-07-2007)
  #23  
Old 10-18-2006, 08:27 PM
viscousmemories's Avatar
viscousmemories viscousmemories is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMXXLVII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 9
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Thanks to JackDog for the notice: PBS Special on 'Net Neutrality Tonight.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-07-2007, 01:53 PM
viscousmemories's Avatar
viscousmemories viscousmemories is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMXXLVII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 9
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Necromancing this thread because the war ain't over.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20630566/
The US Department of Justice threw its weight behind telecommunications operators on Thursday, warning telecom regulators against imposing so-called "net neutrality" rules that would block carriers from charging content providers premium prices to prioritise some web traffic.
This is worrisome but at least the criticism isn't coming from a credible agency.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-07-2007, 05:07 PM
beyelzu's Avatar
beyelzu beyelzu is offline
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
Posts: XMMCMLXXXII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 8
Default Re: Save the 'Net

Quote:
Originally Posted by RareBear View Post
It's kinda like this:

Pretend it's 1986 and the world hasn't yet heard of the net. Presume for a moment that everyone has an original IBM PC (8086 processor). Then all of a sudden, a major manufacturer announces the creation of a 386 processor that is many time faster. You want one. You go to get one and are told, the government felt it wasn't fair to let you buy a 386 becuase your neighbor down the street is not ready to afford one. How would you react?
well it is more like, ibm tells the government that everyone should have a 386, and the government is all like sure and then gives ibm many billions of dollars. and then ibm doesnt give anyone a 386 and claims that if only the software companies will pay more billions then ibm would be able to give everyone a 386. after all the software companies make mad bank, completely ignoring the fact that without those programs who the fuck would want a 386 in the first place.

so yeah, i completely think your analogy is shite.

Quote:
I think this is similar. And that the government should not be inserted to impose artificial price controls. Competition and innovation will produce new stuff that will be worth the money and we'll find ways to pay for it just like we did to replace our computers and software several times through our lives already. Today's internt is not the destination of the information techniology revolution--it is a start. Let's not create the very impediments to our own revolution and keep it in it's current state of stagnation.
lets consider freethought forum for a second, and iidb and moveon.org and every other website in the land.

hell lets think about savekennethfoster.com, i website that probably helped save a mans life.

there is always a corporate controlled media outlet, all of them actually.
Quote:
Change is good--even if it seems to hurt at first.
if i come to your house and anally rape you it is change, in that you probably have never been anally raped and you certainly have never been annally raped by me, so is that good?
__________________
:blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :steve: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Deadlokd (10-20-2007)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.38022 seconds with 13 queries