Save the Internet

[JarquaFelmu]

Mods, please sticky this as soon as you see it.

Okay, here's what is going on.

Right now, the United States Congress is debating on an Issue on if they should abandon the Internet's First Amendment, a principle known as Network Neutrality.

What this amendment does is prevents the companies that supply you the Internet, ones like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast from taxing your usage on sites by making practices like that illegal.

What those companies are trying to do with a multi-million dollar campaign is to get rid of and destroy the Net Neutrality protocol.

If they were to succeed, it would mean that they would tax web site host to load their pages. If a site pays then it gets something called 'prime bandwidth'. If it refuses to pay then it gets very low bandwidth, worse than dial up, or if the companies choose. It may not even load at all.

As humanity's lessons have taught us, that when ever a company has to pay a fee, they always pass the cost onto the consumer.

What this means is that for you or me to do anything on the web, to visit almost any site we will have to pay a fee to visit them.

If the companies win, they will have been give control of the Internet, and will have been given the power to say which sites load, and which don't, and the way they determine that is by who ever pay's the most cash.

This is very real, and very dangerous. Every single person who uses the Internet has a right know the danger that is presented to the Internet as we know it, and we have an obligation to tell them.

Please. If you do not believe me then go here:
www.savetheinternet.com (http://www.savetheinternet.com)

We cannot in our right minds allow the corporations to privatize the Internet. Please tell every single person you can.

Sign the petition to stop this, right now there is over 1 million signatures, but you and I can make a difference. So please help this organization to stop this maddness. Please,


Act Now! Save your internet!

[HyperDemonic]

How do you Sign??

[Ubergopher]

Sign the petition to stop this, right now there is over 1 million signatures, but you and I can make a difference. So please help this organization to stop this maddness. Please,

Because we all know how helpful internet petitions can be...

[JarquaFelmu]

This petition is different. You provide your name and address and it sends a petition automaticly to the members of congress that are in charge of your area. This goes directly to Congress!

It's on the right side, just scroll down.

[U-238]

Hmm, well I suppose it could affect warboards if this was to go through. I mean I don't think AJ will be willing to pay top dollar just to host a gaming forum do you? And think about it. Many forums will die if this goes through. Many people won't be able to keep up with the payments.

[HyperDemonic]

i wrote to them (assholes).

[U-238]

Wrote to who? Your state governor? The people heading the petition drive? Be more specific please...

[GenocideAlive]

Wrote to who? Your state governor? The people heading the petition drive? Be more specific please...
More like, could you stop posting stupid pointless questions after every post? You're like a peeping baby bird. This is certainly a large issue for all regular Internet users, but I seriously doubt an internet petition is going to get anybody anywhere. Write to your member of Congress, or your Representative. It'll be far more productive.

And that website is fucking scary. It's like "please read my Liberal propaganda, the Republicans want to eat Internet babies." It's not "our" internet anymore than a road is "ours" because we habitate it. Companies are spending a lot of money to provide the hardwiring for the Internet out of their own pockets, and this is a way they can capitalize on their expenditure. I'm not advocating what they're planning, but it's more than a little childish to assert that somehow the Internet "belongs" to a bunch of dweebs that rent it from companies that provide it.

[U-238]

Well normaly when someone states they've written to someone and then distinctly call them "assholes" it makes one wonder who they're writing to. It's a simple question. It's not a peeping tom post or anything.

As for writing to my member of congress: I'm already working on it.

[Ubergopher]

And that website is fucking scary. It's like "please read my Liberal propaganda, the Republicans want to eat Internet babies." It's not "our" internet anymore than a road is "ours" because we habitate it. Companies are spending a lot of money to provide the hardwiring for the Internet out of their own pockets, and this is a way they can capitalize on their expenditure. I'm not advocating what they're planning, but it's more than a little childish to assert that somehow the Internet "belongs" to a bunch of dweebs that rent it from companies that provide it.
It isn't often I agree with you GA, but that was nicely put.

[mcflurry_1982]

last week i posted an almost identical thread. the internet is no longer just for a bunch of dweebs almost everyone has an email and has at least used google once.

[hammocksleeper]

Wow. This is blantant solicitation and not allowed, sorry.

[AJ]

Look, it's not advertising -- but it is a rather, interesting site that it's linked to. I'm going to reopen this thread -- but as GA said, and I agree for the most part, the views on that site aren't necessarily the most unbiased.

If you're going to discuss this issue, it sounds like it could begin to push the boundaries of what belongs in the IR, but let's just see.

[JarquaFelmu]

Thank you AJ,

sorry you thought it was advertising Hammock, but you didn't really give me the chance to explain myself.

And, if it does get heated, by all means move it, but I just wanted to let people know. People need to know things like this.

[mcflurry_1982]

savetheinternet.com isnt the only site on this issue and i found a site against net neutrality. Looking at these sites, it is easy to get the impression that the people that are for net neutrality are "liberals" (democrats) and those against it are "conservatives" (Republicans). Yet everyone that i have spoken to on this issue (consercative and liberal) that understood it have been for net neutrality.

It's our net (http://www.itsournet.org/)
google (http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html)
site against net neutrality (http://capwiz.com/sicminc/iessues/alert/?alertid=8817151&type=CO)

Look at all of these companies and organizations that are in the coalition to protect net neutrality:

Acopia Networks
Adaptive Marketing LLC
Adept Integrations
Adobe
Advancedmultimedia.com
Aegon Direct Marketing Services, Inc.
Airespring
Amazon.com
American Association of Law Libraries
American Libraries Association
AnalogZone
AngleBeds.com
Ask.com
Association of Research Libraries
Awow Communications
Bandwidth.com
BE THE MEDIA
Blip.tv
Bloglines
Borsetti & Co.
Business Software Alliance
CALTEL
Cendant
Center for Creative Voices in Media
Chemistry.com
Christian Coalition
CinemaNow
CitizenReporter.com
CitySearch
CLASSIFIED Channel
Cogent Communications
CommPartners Holding Company
COMPTEL
Comunicano, Inc.
Consumer Federation of America
Corliant
Cornerstone Brands, Inc.
CPrompt
Creative Commerce
Dagdamor Media
Data Foundry
Dave Pettito Direct
DiMA
Dimension Servers LLC
Domania
Downstream
Dreamsleep.com
Dresses.com
Eagle's View Press, LLC
EarthLink
eBay
eBrands Commerce Group
Echo Commerce, LLC
Economics & Technology, Inc.
Educause
Elaine P. Dine
ElectionChannel.com
Electronic Retailing Association
Entertainment Publications
Evite.com
Excite
Expedia
Free Press
Free World Dialup
GetSmart
Gifts.com
Google
GotVoice, Inc.
Graceline Canada
Hawthorne Direct
Home Improvement Channel
Home Shopping Network
Hotels.com
Hotwire
HSE24
IAC/InterActiveCorp
Iceland Health Inc.
iFreedom Communications
iNest
InPulse Response
INS
Intel
Interactive Travel Services Association
InterMetro
Internet2
Interval International
Intervox.com
IntraISP
Invens Capital
Isen.com, LLC
IVR Technologies
iWon
J. Arnold & Associates
JohnnyZip
KidsKnowIt Network
Lafayette Group, Inc.
Law Offices of James Tobin
LendingTree
Lingo, Inc.
Listyourself.net
Livemercial
Match.com
McFadden Associates
MCM Telecom
Media Access Project
Media Partners Worldwide
Mercury Media
Merrick Group
Microcom
Microsoft
Miller & Van Eaton
Multichannel Ventures
MyTalent.com
National Coaltion for History
National Retail Federation
Nationalblinds.com
Neo Computers
NetCoalition
Nobox.com
Objectworld
OR-Live.com
Pac-West
PointOne
PRC
Primus Telecommunications
Product Partners LLC
Public Knowledge
Pulver.com
RealEstate.com
Real Estate Channel
ReserveAmerica
Rifftone.com
S & B Technical Products
Savatar
Savvier
Scrapblog.com
ServiceMagic
Shelcomm
Shoebuy.com
Skype
Skype Journal
Sling Media Inc.
SOHOlutions
Sonus Capital Management
Sony Electronics Inc.
Success in the City
SunRocket
Symantec
Symercy Financial Corp.
TechNet
Techviser
Telekom Austria
Telephia
TELLO
TicketChannel.com
Ticketmaster
Tier1Research
TiVO
TNS
Tonystickets.com
Tranquilitymattress.com
Travelocity
udate.com
USAction
VI Technologies
Vivox
Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy
WCW Networks
We are the Web
Yahoo!

[JarquaFelmu]

thank you mcflurry, it's good to see the sheer number of corperations that are aware, this is good, maybe the companines won't win after all.

[Diploaddict]

And that website is fucking scary. It's like "please read my Liberal propaganda, the Republicans want to eat Internet babies." It's not "our" internet anymore than a road is "ours" because we habitate it. Companies are spending a lot of money to provide the hardwiring for the Internet out of their own pockets, and this is a way they can capitalize on their expenditure. I'm not advocating what they're planning, but it's more than a little childish to assert that somehow the Internet "belongs" to a bunch of dweebs that rent it from companies that provide it.

Try going to http://www.itsournet.org/

This isn't necessarilly "liberal propoganda". Favoritism on the net will hurt the average consumer, small business and other small organizations. Basically without protection, the little guys, can be exploited by big business. Making it harder for us to do things without a higher fee. Such as going to Warboards.

I can agree with you that the earlier site was unbiased but this issue goes beyond liberal and conservative divide. The last thing anyone needs is internet neutrality being tossed out the window.

[JarquaFelmu]

And think. If net neutrality is gone. What else could they do?

[GenocideAlive]

This isn't necessarilly "liberal propoganda". Favoritism on the net will hurt the average consumer, small business and other small organizations. Basically without protection, the little guys, can be exploited by big business. Making it harder for us to do things without a higher fee. Such as going to Warboards.

I can agree with you that the earlier site was unbiased but this issue goes beyond liberal and conservative divide. The last thing anyone needs is internet neutrality being tossed out the window.
As I was saying earlier, this can be said to an extent. But many of these companies laid the foundations of "our" Internet in order to bring us Internet services. I ask myself, how the hell am I able to get a broadband connection in 2006 when in 2000 I would have been lucky to get a local dial-up hub? I was playing Starcraft on dial-up back when you were still trying to get your mom to buy you Pokemon. Let me tell you, kids, it fucking sucked.

Maybe you don't really remember that far back, but the answer is fairly clear: someone decided that the long-term business benefit from bringing broadband to smaller towns outweighed the temporary losses they would incur by laying the hardware. I don't like what they're trying to do nor do I ultimately think it's going to be a successful business plan, but a lot of people here have seriously got the wrong idea about to whom the Internet "belongs".

You don't own the wire running up to your house, you don't own the servers it connects to, and you don't own the hubs or support technicians they use to maintain your lines. Just because you have your own copy of Internet Explorer doesn't mean that you or any collective body of the public suddenly owns the Internet. The vast majority of the lines belong to private industry, and they want a return on the investment they put forth to put it there.

The petition is a good idea--but the thought that you're going to force someone to do anything about private lines is very destructive to what you're trying to get accomplished and to your position. You're not going to convince anybody in Washington to stop pollution on the basis that its wrong and the air belongs to you--you're going to get them to listen based upon the damage its causing to life and ecosystems. Similarly, you need to find out how this will be harmful to Internet exchange in a tangible way--not that it sucks to be forced to pay for services.

[Diploaddict]

As I was saying earlier, this can be said to an extent. But many of these companies laid the foundations of "our" Internet in order to bring us Internet services. I ask myself, how the hell am I able to get a broadband connection in 2006 when in 2000 I would have been lucky to get a local dial-up hub? I was playing Starcraft on dial-up back when you were still trying to get your mom to buy you Pokemon. Let me tell you, kids, it fucking sucked.

Peace and love. Peace and love. Peace and love. Peace and LOVE (If you recite it 10,000 in a mantra over an idol of Hillary Clinton you too will be a liberal). Try it, really.[/sarcasm]

Oh hey you again. I remember playing Starcraft, Diablo and playing Pokemon. I prefer and always will prefer playing different sort of games. You know trying different stuff. But anyways, sir, the last time I checked being 26 doesn't make you the god of the world. Wait I mean it makes you 26. Just because I happen to be only 19 doesn't mean that my opinion is any more flawed than yours might be? It's sort, you guessed it, an opinion.

Anyways you were talking about playing on a dial-up modem? Yes it was horrible. Yes it stunk.

Let me tell you, old man, it sucked. :rolleyes:

Do I enjoy having access to DSL at home now? Yes. Does it make a world of difference compared to a dial-up? Yes.

Maybe you don't really remember that far back, but the answer is fairly clear: someone decided that the long-term business benefit from bringing broadband to smaller towns outweighed the temporary losses they would incur by laying the hardware. I don't like what they're trying to do nor do I ultimately think it's going to be a successful business plan, but a lot of people here have seriously got the wrong idea about to whom the Internet "belongs".

Yes I can remember that far back. Does being only seven years younger than you really matter? No.

I also see that by these companies allowing smaller towns, outlying areas and just about anyone who isn't working for a large corporation, the government/military or filthy rich was great business idea. Suddenly they found a huge quantity of consumers who would be faithful and good customers and pay a fee for their services. By sowing the seeds and allowing more citizens of America to have to higher speed internet, they reaped the whirlwind and are making money. Thus the internet is a paid service that companies give to their customers, AKA consumers.

As I hope you know their has been a push in the US and in other major nations (although huge global corporations sometimes puts this into question) to prevent major monopolies, allow for competition and protect consumer rights. At least to the point that the consumer feels like they get what they fairly deserve and doesn't complain.

You don't own the wire running up to your house, you don't own the servers it connects to, and you don't own the hubs or support technicians they use to maintain your lines. Just because you have your own copy of Internet Explorer doesn't mean that you or any collective body of the public suddenly owns the Internet. The vast majority of the lines belong to private industry, and they want a return on the investment they put forth to put it there.

You are correct I do not own the private wires running to my home, I do not own the servers that connect to my home. Nor do I own the hubs. But as a consumer what I pay for my internet service helps pay for these services. As do millions of other American consumers. Since I do own a computer with internet access I perfer to be able to connect to the websites I wish to. So do millions of other consumers.

As mcflurry_1982's post shows, many businesses value their customers. The best way to keep your customers happy is to ensure that they feel like they've been treated fairly and is enough to make them believe they are a valued customer. Favoritism of one site over another will hurt consumer confidence and make them less apt to give repeat business. Being a 19 year old working in a small business (a comic book store) has taught me this and hopefully since you've been in the work force seven years more than I have, you know this as well.

If I treat some customers better than others publically, I will cause the rest of my customers feel disenfranchised and might take their business elsewhere. Unfair favortism (in a customer's eyes) hurts consumer confindence and can hurt business, especially before when their was a certain equatlity between the customers before. Which is why you see that there is a list of businesses that realize that this move will potentially hurt their business.

The petition is a good idea--but the thought that you're going to force someone to do anything about private lines is very destructive to what you're trying to get accomplished and to your position. You're not going to convince anybody in Washington to stop pollution on the basis that its wrong and the air belongs to you--you're going to get them to listen based upon the damage its causing to life and ecosystems. Similarly, you need to find out how this will be harmful to Internet exchange in a tangible way--not that it sucks to be forced to pay for services.

A petition is a good idea because we're not trying to force a business to give us what they want, it's there to force a politican to reestablish laws that protect consumer equality on the internet. If you want to be purly cynical, then yes you don't convince anybody in Washington to stop pollution on the basis that it's wrong and the air belongs to you: you get the politican to listen to you because he or she gets kicked out of office because they're actions angered enough voters. If enough consumers feel that the ability to access different websites on the internet they can force a politican to reestablish protection that the consumer once enjoyed.

Of course this won't "harm" internet exchange just like the idea of monopolies don't "harm" the economy. Suddenly only big business controls where they want you to go and their is no other remedy than paying the fee that they are forcing you too. Thus the consumer has a right to be alarmed and ask for the government to reestablish and protect equality on the internet.

[JarquaFelmu]

Thank you, Diploaddict, that was way better put that I could have:).

Seriously GA, I am 19 as well. I am not some 12 year old brat that only wants my lollipop and thats it. So don't treat us like one, and we won't treat you in the same regard.

Yeah, I do remember playing Starcraft in 2000 with a dialup connection. Yes I'm happy that I have DSL now, but the Dialup thing wasn't really that bad, yes it was slow, But it was live able.

And the point of this is, not that we're trying to say "oh big companies are bad lets all join hands and sing a little song and take them all down" /sarcasm. But the point is. Yeah we don't own all the things that run our house. But the point is that we already do pay for them. We pay phone bills, we pay internet broadband bills, we payed the electrician to come and install the wiring, we pay the Power companies to give us power, and even we pay most games to use their servers.

However, what the companies are trying to do is make every single person pay to just simply surf the internet. How are they doing that? By lobbying congress. And that is just exactly what we are doing. The average Joe should be worried about what is happening. Congress is supposed to make decisions in the interest of the people, We're just asking them to make sure they're looking both directions.

[Kingscrab]

I am not some 12 year old brat that only wants my lollipop and thats it. So don't treat us like one, and we won't treat you in the same regard. I don't know, dude... It's REALLY hard for me to take anyone who plays Pokemon seriously. (But that's just me... *shrug*)

[Diploaddict]

I don't know, dude... It's REALLY hard for me to take anyone who plays Pokemon seriously. (But that's just me... *shrug*)

Hehe, I said I remember playing it. Not that I play it all the time. :P

[GenocideAlive]

But anyways, sir, the last time I checked being 26 doesn't make you the god of the world. Wait I mean it makes you 26. Just because I happen to be only 19 doesn't mean that my opinion is any more flawed than yours might be? It's sort, you guessed it, an opinion.
If you would like me to register my opinion, I most certainly can do that. But in the meantime, I have offered up very little in the way of my opinion, because true thought is often bogged down and obscured by the infinite presence of opinion. My ultimate purpose behind pointing out that I was playing Starcraft in 2000 with a modem wasn't to undermine your credibility; if I had wanted to do such I would have pointed out that I played Warcraft 1 and programmed in Basic long before you knew what a computer was. I can go much further back than the year 2000, it just provides a good frame of reference.

My point to saying such was that the Internet has come a long way since 2000, and it's not because of the government (whom you are lobbying) or because of something that you did to make it so. Try looking at television cable services before Time Warner for a good idea of how apathetic, disjointed companies end up hurting the end user.
Suddenly they found a huge quantity of consumers who would POTENTIALLY be faithful and good customers and POTENTIALLY pay a fee for their services. By sowing the seeds and allowing more citizens of America to have to higher speed internet, they reaped the VENTURE CAPITAL and are making money.
I fixed your vague bullshitisms with words that actually express meaning in terms of economics and capitalism. Those customers that Time Warner and its subsidiaries attempted to mine ended up biting, which was good for Time Warner and good for those towns. If they ended up NOT biting, it wouldn't have mattered to the towns (because they didn't want it anyway), but it would have hurt the hell out of Time Warner. They took the risk with the captial to pay for the lines and the servers, so they get the pay off--this is one way that they're trying to make that risk pay for itself.
As I hope you know their has been a push in the US and in other major nations (although huge global corporations sometimes puts this into question) to prevent major monopolies, allow for competition and protect consumer rights. At least to the point that the consumer feels like they get what they fairly deserve and doesn't complain.

But as a consumer what I pay for my internet service helps pay for these services. As do millions of other American consumers. Since I do own a computer with internet access I perfer to be able to connect to the websites I wish to. So do millions of other consumers.
If a family wants to start a buffett business and they succeed in getting it off the ground, then they enfranchise their business, do those businesses lose the ability to refuse service to members of the public? No. If they don't want to serve you, there isn't shit you can do about it--you as a consumer can choose to take your business elsewhere and that's it. But the problem here is that no-one else has sprung the cash to put those lines in all these towns, no-one has put forth the VENTURE CAPITAL to compete. Truthiness and indignance don't lend credibility to your stance--you have no inherent rights to someone else's business.

So you either play by Time Warner rules or you buy your own Internet company, and compete with them by letting everybody use their lines however you want. Hell, get together some of those people and those companies on that list! But let me guess, nobody wants to do that--because if you went through all that time and money to get those lines there, you're going to want to make it work for you. Everybody is always so generous with someone else's money.
Favoritism of one site over another will hurt consumer confidence and make them less apt to give repeat business. If I treat some customers better than others publically, I will cause the rest of my customers feel disenfranchised and might take their business elsewhere. Unfair favortism (in a customer's eyes) hurts consumer confindence and can hurt business, especially before when their was a certain equatlity between the customers before. Which is why you see that there is a list of businesses that realize that this move will potentially hurt their business.
Funny, I wonder how "VIP" lounges caught on so fast, according to your airtight business model there. :rolleyes: Tiered services are a staple of modern business practices--not only because the axiom "you get what you pay for" rings true even today, but because there are some people who literally only want the bare minimum for web surfing (my grandfather) and there are those who want the extra-virgin bandwidth for gaming (think olive oil, not porn).
A petition is a good idea because we're not trying to force a business to give us what they want, it's there to force a politican to reestablish laws that protect consumer equality on the internet. If you want to be purly cynical, then yes you don't convince anybody in Washington to stop pollution on the basis that it's wrong and the air belongs to you: you get the politican to listen to you because he or she gets kicked out of office because they're actions angered enough voters. If enough consumers feel that the ability to access different websites on the internet they can force a politican to reestablish protection that the consumer once enjoyed.
This would be true if you were actually working towards having some politicans enforce consumer rights--but what you are basically doing here is starting a racket to force businesses to give you premiums. The law and its members weren't designed for consumers to go out and force businesses to give away their services or to regulate the services themselves. You're a patron, not the owner; again, if you don't like the service, go somewhere else. You can't dictate the owners' rights to service to him just because you are unhappy.

Yours and your compatriots' best bet for equity on the Internet as you so desperately claim to want is based upon monopolies and anti-trust law. If you continue upon this path of "free our Internet" as your banner, you are dooming yourselves to failure. Plain and simple.
Seriously GA, I am 19 as well. I am not some 12 year old brat that only wants my lollipop and thats it. So don't treat us like one, and we won't treat you in the same regard.
Honestly your age doesn't impress upon me any need to give you any particular attention. Your speech and behavior smack of a spoiled child that has overstepped their bounds in multiple facets. You may treat me however you wish in return, you honestly possess no weapons of voice or capability that strike in me any chords of fear.

[Dark_Magneto]

My point to saying such was that the Internet has come a long way since 2000, and it's not because of the government...

If it weren't for ARPANET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet), there would be no internet.

[hammocksleeper]

Let me jump in the middle of this here trouncing of GA (with whom I actually agree) and just say that I do remember playing lots of games on dial-up and Starcraft is just as fast and seamless on a 56k connection as it is on a broadband connection, and so to say that "it fucking sucked" playing it on dial-up is terribly inaccurate. The multiplayer game was designed and optimized for dial-up connections at the time, and so the amount of data transferred between players during a game doesn't exceed the bandwidth allowed by such a connection.

Not that that has anything to do with anything. My opinion is that "net neutrality" is a horribly biased phrase coined by propagandists who like to bite the hand that feeds them. Like GA said, you don't own the data lines, and you certainly have no entitlement to what you deem as cheap service. The removal of "net neutrality" is nothing more than an exercise in market segmentation. Even without net neutrality no one is going to pay for more than what they are willing, and you can be damn sure that the cable companies will offer you whatever you are willing to pay for. The market thus becomes more efficient and dead weight loss is reduced.

[GenocideAlive]

If it weren't for ARPANET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet), there would be no internet.
Horseshit. That's like saying "since ancient Rome had roads, no-one should be able to charge any toll on any modern road. They belong to the people".

And to take it out of argument via analogy, ARPANet has so little to do with the Internet that Al Gore was famously ridiculed for his claim that "I helped invent the Internet", during his 2000 Campaign when he was referring to ARPANet. He did help develop ARPANet by voting for its funding, but both ARPANet and his "contribution" are so far from what became the modern day Internet that other candidates such as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, ridiculed him by saying such things as "Oh yes, and I helped invent the paper clip."

http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/users/goguen/courses/275f00/invented.html
http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?res=9A06E7DC1731F93BA25750C0A96F95 8260
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h032999_1.shtml
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00.html
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200607210005
I've got more, just ask.

Seriously, post more stupid pundit rhetoric-shit. I like exposing frauds.

Speaking of frauds:
Let me jump in the middle of this here trouncing of GA
What can I say, hammock. Your unsupported assertions laced with ad hominem are probably what keeps you out of the IR for any extended period of time. But honestly, we don't keep you around for your argument analysis. Wait...why do we keep him around?

[Ubergopher]

Wait...why do we keep him around?
Stunning good looks?

[Skullflower]

I thought CERN created the internet? wait. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN

[Toucan]

No one company is responsible for the creation of the Internet, as the Internet has grown over the years it has developed quite literally 1000' of technical issues that where fixed by the creation of hardware or software by a 1000 different independent companies. I think it safe to say that the Internet was created by a thousand different companies. Though the first PC network was ARPANET ,but even though a couple of the computers where quite far away from each other, I think it was more comparable to a LAN than a WAN.

I don't think you guys need to worry about this net neutrality thing to much. In Australia there has never been any law to say that one ISP must allow another ISP or host the right to connect to it. When the Internet was new here, it was common for people to create a website on there ISP provided web space just to find that anyone who was not a member of there ISP would not be able to connect it. What fixed the issue was not the government stepping in to regulate it, it was simply the consumer leaving ISP's that would not provide the service they expected.
As long as there is one company that is still doing business fairly, there competition must do the same or they will loose there clientele to the company that is being fair.

[master_link]

would this affect me if i live outside of the USA?

[mcflurry_1982]

would this affect me if i live outside of the USA?
not sure but in theory yes. it would depend on how your signal was routed through the U.S. most likey you would get iffy reception of sites here and could in theory lose the ability to go to some depending on how the companies chose to manage access to a particular site.


The petition that is out there to protect net neutrality is not for the creation of legislation (although they may eventually push for some) it is to defeat a bill put forth by these companies' lobbyists to allow them to charge sites and people for "premium" access. i dont want the government to regulate net neutrality but on the same token i dont want it to be taken away. i just want to be able to go where i want when i want online. i like being able to shop online wearing as much or as little as i want to and get great discounts from sites like amazon.

[xfob]

online petitions never work

[B.A.Baracus]

Don't you guys know anything, none of you have mentioned the most useful function of the interent.
Everybody knows that; the internet is for porn'
The internet is for porn'
All these guys unzip their flies for porn porn porn!

[KexMex]

That song is annoying. It really is.

[Dark_Magneto]

Horseshit. That's like saying "since ancient Rome had roads, no-one should be able to charge any toll on any modern road. They belong to the people".

I'm not talking about as far as paying for services or anything goes, but as far as the existence of the concept is concerned. Unless you've figured out some way to make it work that doesn't involve any of the technologies involved in the ARPANET project, that is.

[GenocideAlive]

I'm not talking about as far as paying for services or anything goes, but as far as the existence of the concept is concerned. Unless you've figured out some way to make it work that doesn't involve any of the technologies involved in the ARPANET project, that is.
Well, as long as you're talking about prototypes in fantasy land, I'm sure that there's some way that you can start making things logical. In a land where everything is limited only by one's imagination, anything is possible.

That said, we're talking about private companies in the real world dictating use of lines paid and laid for rent by consumers. These ventures into captialism weren't assisted by the government in any way, as laying cable in the ground is a decades-old concept. Feel free to counter with anything that isn't a Red Herring.

[mcflurry_1982]

but we dont pay them to limit our access. that would be like having them cut off CBS or ESPN unless those networks and you paid extra. granted they charge more for channels like HBO, Cinemax and Starz but those networks are commercial free and therefore cost more and so the fee is mainly to recover cost. plus to get any sort off internet access u already have to pay them. unless u want to spend hours at the public library.

[hammocksleeper]

but we dont pay them to limit our access. that would be like having them cut off CBS or ESPN unless those networks and you paid extra. granted they charge more for channels like HBO, Cinemax and Starz but those networks are commercial free and therefore cost more and so the fee is mainly to recover cost. plus to get any sort off internet access u already have to pay them. unless u want to spend hours at the public library.

Actually cable TV is very similar to the internet without net neutrality. (Trying very hard not to sound like I'm flaunting any kind of superior knowledge here, GA:) Did you know that not only are HBO, Cinemax, and Starz premium channels for which you pay extra, but so are all the other channels? In order to get ESPN from my cable provider I have to pay for the "extended package" which includes a whole slew of other channels like Discovery Health and Animal Planet which I may or may not even want. This is a cost above and beyond the basic cable fee, which gets you just the broadast networks, plus two or three other channels like CNN and USA.

Satellite TV providers offer consumers even greater choice in what packages they want. Call up Direct TV and let them tell you about the 30 or so different pay options you can pick from, with anywhere from 3-300 channels available to you. "Yeah well why can't I just have all the channels for one fee? I am receving all of them via cable/satellite, but my provider chooses to block them because I don't pay enough money." Don't you see that it's the exact same scenario as the internet? The removal of Net Neutrality would do something similar. And it's a good thing, because users who don't need all the channels don't have to pay for them.

[Toucan]

Television channel providers are a one way transmission and not an accurate comparison with the Internet in any way.
When you have cable or satellite television you do not have the ability to run a channel and contribute to the content of that cable or satellite television network. The Internet gives every one this option.
When network neutrality is gone I'm quite sure these network providers are going to try to make website hosts and other Internet services pay each and every major ISP they wish to be available to. Personally I don't believe it will work. As I said earlier, there is no law stopping ISP's from doing just that here in Australia, but imagine what would happen and will happen to an ISP's customer base when there users find they cant access what they are trying to access and then cant give a decent excuse as to why.

[mcflurry_1982]

but with the vast array of web sites there isnt any equitable of setting up any "package" system. any attempt to catagorize them would be a futile and inaccurate venture. i see this being a cripling blow to the internet economy. making in near, if not actually, for new shopping sites to enter the market. and even the smaller existing ones could be taken out cuz the cant pay and/or lose too many customers. and what about all of these webtoon sites such as doogtoons, penny arcade, and stick page who could end up being filtered out along with hundreds of others like them.

[GenocideAlive]

Television channel providers are a one way transmission and not an accurate comparison with the Internet in any way.
When you have cable or satellite television you do not have the ability to run a channel and contribute to the content of that cable or satellite television network. The Internet gives every one this option.
Actually, it's called an "analogy", and it's a pretty damned good one. The cable providers have two shit-tons of channels piping through everyone's lines at any point and time--it's just a matter of turning the filter off. They charge you premiums for specific channels that they dictate and manage.
When network neutrality is gone I'm quite sure these network providers are going to try to make website hosts and other Internet services pay each and every major ISP they wish to be available to. Personally I don't believe it will work. As I said earlier, there is no law stopping ISP's from doing just that here in Australia, but imagine what would happen and will happen to an ISP's customer base when there users find they cant access what they are trying to access and then cant give a decent excuse as to why.
I seriously doubt that any web provider will "block" others' access to web sites that they consider competition. You'll simply be provided the worst prioritization of the server to do so. There's nothing wrong with that any more than the cable company providing you incentive to buy a channel by reducing its cost and not permitting ads for other cable companies / satellite TV on their programming.

I think it's going to be a fairly reasonable setup--and I seriously doubt that this is going to become a fuck-the-consumer-over contest, as companies don't want to isolate themselves. They'd form conglomerates before that kind of thing happened, and then only a few sites would see any drastic change. None that get tons of hits anyway.
Trying very hard not to sound like I'm flaunting any kind of superior knowledge here GA
My problem was an entry into an ongoing conversation that was prefaced by an insult, not your style of posting. I don't particularly occupy myself with the nuances of people's writing.

[Toucan]

Actually, it's called an "analogy", and it's a pretty damned good one. The cable providers have two shit-tons of channels piping through everyone's lines at any point and time--it's just a matter of turning the filter off. They charge you premiums for specific channels that they dictate and manage.

Very well then, analogy. But as you said yourself they charge for specific channels, channels that broadcast specific media that they hold copyright and for the purposes of broadcasting at that specific time, they own.

In most cases with an ISP they own nothing but there network and distribute other peoples intellectual property for the purpose of making money, now they have presented this plan of prioritisation that will make it necessary for a website owner to have to pay an ISP or possibly multiple ISP's in order to continue having the privilege of having these ISP's make money by distributing there property.
Personally, I think the plan is a little backward, especially when you consider some of the major websites and Internet services that exist today.

[hammocksleeper]

Reading all these debates about Net Neutrality sometimes makes me wonder how many people really have a complete grasp on the ramifications of Net Neutrality. Have you ever stopped to consider the impact for a company like Google, with 450,000 servers and over 30 billion search requests a month? They could be required to pay extra just for the permittance of sharing their information with whomever they want! Yet, where is the uproar from Google? Or eBay? Or Amazon.com, etc.?

[Neo]

Uhm... there is an uproar from google, amazon, AND ebay. I actually recieved an email from ebay's ceo about this awhile back, as should any other ebay member. In fact, Google is one of the leading groups against removal of NN.

See, my problem is that the telecom/isp's were given money awhile back, to bring broadband (or whatever it was specifically) to all areas of the US -- not to mention upgrading the existing backbone by 2006.

Instead, here we are, and they want more money, and ot remove NN. The fact is that there is no reason to remove, except to allow them to make more money.

The Intenet is not owned by america. We shoudln't have to pay the ISP double to surf (pay them for tier 2 service on your end, and the site your visiting has to pay them double as well for 'prime bandwidth' -- pretty fucking lame isn't it?).

People are delving to much into this, and not understanding that if NN was removed, then the Internet WOULD CHANGE. Sites such as warboards, fansites, non profits, personal sites, etc... would be impacted greatly. If it was removed, and the ISPs went lame, then I and other freelancing designers would be out of work, personal sites that people put up would also be out of luck -- unless they paid for the "privelage" of sharing their info.

I dunno. It's not broke. So it certainly doesn't need fixing.

Id be more interested in know how the hell the ISPs wasted all that money they were supposed to be using to upgrade the backbones.

Did you know that in Korea, they have broadband service to every home? Cheaper then we pay for normal dial up here? Do you think we can't do that here? No. We could, its just companies are unwilling to upgrade, and/or take cuts in their profits... or whatever.

SBC/ATT has it somewhat right, with the, what is it, $12 a month for a year promos? Out in the boonies, like my family, we've got to pay like $50 a month for similar service.

Pardon me if I am unwilling to pay even more for broadband.

-Neo

[Toucan]

Reading all these debates about Net Neutrality sometimes makes me wonder how many people really have a complete grasp on the ramifications of Net Neutrality. Have you ever stopped to consider the impact for a company like Google, with 450,000 servers and over 30 billion search requests a month? They could be required to pay extra just for the permittance of sharing their information with whomever they want! Yet, where is the uproar from Google? Or eBay? Or Amazon.com, etc.?
I don't know Hammock, I wasn't babbling on about cable companies and I am well aware of the action now being taken by Google, eBay Amazon etc. I don't think it myself, mcflurry or Neo that need to educate ourselves on this issue. This did not pop up over night, it is not an unanalyzed issue.

[hammocksleeper]

I don't know Hammock, I wasn't babbling on about cable companies and I am well aware of the action now being taken by Google, eBay Amazon etc. I don't think it myself, mcflurry or Neo that need to educate ourselves on this issue. This did not pop up over night, it is not an unanalyzed issue.

I was talking more about myself and other casual observers of the NN issue, not necessarily you or anyone else. Net neutrality is not really something I am passionate about, and so it wasn't until today when I was just thinking and I realized that this had an effect on owners of web servers etc. and not just home users.

Thank you Neo for clearing that up for me, I did a little googling and saw that google has an online petition or whatever, and the CEO wrote an open letter. But we all know that kind of stuff is worth jackshit. Is there any evidence that Google has pledged or spent money lobbying on Capitol Hill for their cause, or in any other way actually used political or economic muscle in support of this issue? It might be wise to consider that ISPs are definitely in a position to gain by the removal of net neutrality, and it is a fact that Google has been stockpiling fiber optic infrastructure and also owns a huge block of IPv6 addresses (soon to replace the current IP address system), a block so large it is only reserved for ISPs.

It's a safe bet that within the next 5-10 years Google will be making a strong entry into the telecomm market, so it won't even have to worry about Verizon trying to charge it outrageous fees. Google will have its own pipes, and will essentially, at least in the context of the argument for net neutrality presented here, "become the enemy." This is of course speculation, but the strong possibility is there. Read up a little here, check out the comments mostly. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=254

[Toucan]

Is there any evidence that Google has pledged or spent money lobbying on Capitol Hill for their cause, or in any other way actually used political or economic muscle in support of this issue?
Google has been stockpiling fiber optic infrastructure and also owns a huge block of IPv6 addresses (soon to replace the current IP address system), a block so large it is only reserved for ISPs.

It's a safe bet that within the next 5-10 years Google will be making a strong entry into the telecomm market

Do you think any ISP in the world wants Google to enter this market? Don't forget Google has built a massive data center (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/technology/14search.html?ei=5090&en=d96a72b3c5f91c47&ex=1307937600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1150319178-c4oPeA+SF6J87uv1PntF2Q) the size of 2 football fields where it said they have built what is currently the biggest computer in the world. Microsoft and Yahoo have just received permits to build similar data centers but they are now years behind. Google has there eyes on everything, not just ISP's and telecommunications.

But it remains to be seen what there intentions are with all this computing and networking power they are putting together for themselves. It is apparent that they are opposed to the removal of NN they may open a network of there own, a vast network at that and one that still operates with NN in mind.

By the way, according to ARIN policy, in order to have been eligible to purchase the address block they must have intentions to provide connectivity to at least 200 companies with in the next 5 years.

[Neo]

Its been rumoured that if they fuck up the current internet, then Google will simply create their own internet.

They are already offering wireless service in certain areas. So yeah, they've gone past "maybe going into the isp business"

-Neo

[JarquaFelmu]

heh. Google is going strong. I almost feel sorry for Microsoft and the other companies that offer things that google wants.

The Major thing is that if NN goes away is that WB will be in jepordy. If you can handle that then I guess you don't care about the issue, but for the rest of WB that presents a very real nightmare.