Network Neutrality

[Needeles]

Hey just wated to post this so others can see and try to help. Use the link below to get more info.

Network Neutrality Link (http://savetheinternet.com/=faq)

Now I myself don't usally get invloved in things like this but the big companies are just going overboard with this one. Basically what they want is to start charging businesses fees to be able to show there site on the internet. If they don't pay the fees there site may load very slow or not even show up on certaoin networks. Places like this site could even be effected by it. All I ask is you simply check out the site and even sign the petition to help stop this from happening.

[sly2kusa]

Hate to say it, but this doesn't surprise me one bit. Big brother and all of his lobbyists have always wanted to police the net, and make it into a much more conglomerate based capitalistic opportunity (just look at any eCommerce site).

Thing is you can already have more bandwidth for your site if you are willing to pay for it, so really - this is just more hogwash than anything.

I'm a Moderate who normally leans to the Right on most issues, but even I see the error in such thinking.

Unfortunately for the little guy in this one - money talks.

[plah831]

I'm going to sign that petition. Why do the companies care? If we post a link to their products, it will probably increase sales, right?

[sly2kusa]

I'm going to sign that petition. Why do the companies care? If we post a link to their products, it will probably increase sales, right?

That's a really great poing (I mean what's the use of having annoying freakin' pop-ups if you are not going to reward someone???*LOL*)

It's just more crap than anything. Akin to the likes of Al Gore inventing the Internet, and Bush actually having a brain for any type of Science that didn't involve Oil.

[rbishop]

Lets keep comments on Needeles original post and that subject.

Nothing good will come of making insinuations by name on the politicians. Sooner or later it will offend and start an off topice flame war. Thanks for your help.

Needeles....good link.

[Needeles]

Thing is you can already have more bandwidth for your site if you are willing to pay for it, so really - this is just more hogwash than anything.

I understand paying for bandwidth but what these companies want to do is something different. In this case it would not matter how much bandwidth you purchased. They simply want companies to pay to even allow people like you and me to look at there site. This in itself is going to drive up prices on products sold. Sites like this one will have to start charging people just so they can be seen on the net. If a site doesn't want to pay then people will not be able to even get to the site as it will be blocked from a user. Just think of it this way, one day you decide to go to a site that has been up for years, like this one, but you get a message stating that the site is not longer accessable. The reason it would not be accessable is because AC chose not to pay an outragous fee. You would then no longer have a free fish forum to visit. Now think of this in regards to all the other thousands of free sites. You would not be able to see them because they choose not to pay the big fee to be seen. This is uncalled for. Compaines already have to pay out enough to host a site let alone having to pay hundreds or even thousands more just so people like you and I can see them.

If we post a link to their products, it will probably increase sales, right?

It isn't even about sales. They just want to have total control. They want to be the ones to say what a person can and can't see. The site above gave a really good example to what could happen if this type of plan went through. Look at it like cable or satilite TV. "Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu." This means you will only allowed to view the sites that the ISP says is ok to look at. The big companies see it as they have more control and can make more money this way. Again if a site doesn't pay a fee you will not be able to see it.

[plah831]

that's absolutely ridiculous. So the days of free internet might be coming to an end. I guess nothing is free in this day and age, not even information.

[Needeles]

that's absolutely ridiculous. So the days of free internet might be coming to an end. I guess nothing is free in this day and age, not even information.

Pretty much if the big companies get there way. This is why I added a post regarding it. I thought with all the members we have on this site some might go and sign the petition. I know it is a small amount compared to the rest of the world but every person adding there input will help.

I would really hate to lose sites like this one just because big corps want to make more money and have more control then they really need. Please everyone go and at least take a look at the site listed above.

[sly2kusa]

Lets keep comments on Needeles original post and that subject.

Nothing good will come of making insinuations by name on the politicians. Sooner or later it will offend and start an off topice flame war. Thanks for your help.

Needeles....good link.


My apologies, but this really is a government issue involving the regulations of commerce (in this case eCommerce).

Personally I hope this becomes more Urban Legend than truth (like the email a few years back that went around telling how the USPS was going to mandate a .5 cent per email cost on any ISP where email was provided).

Ummmmmm.....Yeah.

Hopefully no one is successful at hijacking the Internet like this, but you never know.

[Needeles]

I just received a reply from my senator regarding this issue. Below is the e-mail that I received...


Dear Mr. *****:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your
concerns about the Internet and net neutrality. I value the
correspondence I get from people back home in Wisconsin. I
apologize for the delay in my response and would like to take this
opportunity to address your concerns.

As you may know, "net neutrality" refers to the concept
that Internet network operators should be neutral conduits of
content. In other words, phone, cable, and other companies that
operate Internet networks should not be permitted to favor or
prioritize some Internet traffic over other traffic.

Internet network operators have recently argued they
should be permitted to charge higher rates for some types of
content and services than others. This would give network
operators the ability to sell priority status to content providers. In
exchange for a fee, certain content would receive priority over
general traffic and move from point to point more quickly.
Network operators claim these fees would permit network
upgrades and the creation of new services. They also argue this
tiered service option would benefit consumers by managing
Internet traffic more effectively and therefore offering a higher
speed Internet.

Internet content providers are generally opposed to any
attempt to undermine the current impartiality of the Internet.
These companies, which provide the "content" of the Internet,
believe net neutrality is crucial for the continued growth and
success of the Internet. Content providers argue that permitting
priority pricing on the Internet would restrict consumer choice and
activity and would fundamentally undermine the Internet.

I appreciate knowing your thoughts about net neutrality and
the Internet. After a number of hearings before the Senate
Commerce Committee, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) introduced S.
2686, the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband
Deployment Act," on May 1, 2006. Although the bill provides
sweeping telecommunications reforms, in such areas universal
service reform, video franchising, interoperability of public safety
communications systems, and municipal broadband ownership,
some have raised concerns regarding insufficient provisions to
ensure net neutrality. This legislation was passed by the
Commerce Committee on June 28, 2006.

In response to these concerns, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-
ME) introduced S. 2917, the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act,"
on May 19, 2006. This legislation would amend the
Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality. This
legislation has also been referred to the Commerce Committee,
where a consensus on the issue of net neutrality has yet to be
reached.

You may be interested to know that on June 14, 2006, the
Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, recently held a hearing
entitled, "Reconsidering Our Communications Laws: Ensuring
Competition and Innovation," during which Members heard
testimony on a number of issues concerning telecommunications,
in particular, the competitive implications of net neutrality. As the
Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on
Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, you can be
sure that I am committed to developing policies that foster greater
competition among service and content providers and lead to a
wider service selection and lower rates to consumers. We must
ensure that consumers have unfettered access to all internet content
free from discrimination and that broadband providers do not
determine winners and losers on the information superhighway.
However, at the same time, broadband providers need to be able to
manage their networks so that the profusion of video content does
not degrade the internet experience for everyone.

You can be assured I will continue to closely monitor this
issue to ensure that consumers enjoy the benefits of a competitive
telecommunications market. Again, thank you for contacting me
about this important issue. I appreciate having the benefit of your
views.




Sincerely,


Herb Kohl
U.S. Senator

[sly2kusa]

I guess the whole point to all of this is that they all already do this. ISP's already tier their pricing so various packages are available just depending what you want to do.

For instance - I have SBC/AT&T DSL at Home. Now - do you think if I put up a web server on my home dsl access that my ISP wouldn't notice and wouldn't call and ***** at me about it? You bet they would.

Point is they can do all of this right now (black list content right now), and in fact - some providers do! There's even providers that black list other providers, but if any of the big company's try to do this they'd probably all go bankrupt. Either that or people just wouldn't pay for their crappy service anymore (do you think the little guy wouldn't come back twice as strong if they try???) I almost started up my own ISP back in the mid-1990's because of similar junk that was going on back then.

In the end - trying to screw your customer's over isn't a really good business move, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over this.

If they do - get ready for the rogue ISP's to come back.