God thank you! With all the backwards steps we've taken in America over the last 8 years, I don't see this too far off from reality. Hopefuly, if nothing else, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft can stop it.

Yes, maintain it's profitability. Not in the present, but in the future. When the '96 Telecom Act was written a decade ago present uses for the internet were not devised or proven to be viable in the marketplace. Now things are different.

How different? Well Company A starts a long distance broadband phone service that utilizes the infastructure of Verizon. Since Verizon is also a phone carrier this is a direct competitor. The catch? Company A is not bound by the same regulations as Verizon and Verizon get's no royalty payments even though it's infastructure/assets are being used to generate a profit for Company A. It's this lack of foresight based upon one law that's gonna cost Verizon and could put them out of business? Is that fair? Screw fairness for a second and ask, is that right? This is a far cry from what most people in the thread are talking about or even considering.

Great article though. I especially liked the part where it listed the FCC as the primary enabler of the telecom companies.

Yeah! Those greedy corporations are on our side. Wait, wasn't and isn't Microsoft still involved in all those anti-trust lawsuits from Europe to here?!

I wouldn't be surprised if all these scary tactics were taken from a public interest group tied to Microsoft.

Microsoft's a giant corporation with questionable ethics. Wow Watts, I didn't think that it was needed to state that that's common knowledge. Yeah, I'm not super fond of Microsoft but I recognize that they have power. Therefore, questionable ethics or not, I'm just glad that they're, for once, on the desired side! Cause, frankly, I don't want these other fuckers shitting all over my internet.

If it's using the Phone System they're required to pay royalties. But if it's using Internet Bandwidth it's a completely seperate concept. Internet Bandwidth is Internet Bandwidth - it's all the same. Presuming that you meant for your analogy to represent VoIP, it's like saying that Henry Ford should have to pay royalties to Horse companies for using the roads.

The cable companies who provide Internet services have zero competetors to that particular product as designed by the government to allow them to be run as other utilities, so Watts's example doesn't work. You might argue that ISP's should be forced to charge less as they are not allowed to have a competetor and it is not necessary for them to maintain the Internet structure beyond the end points. The telcoms went and did that by choice and now are whining about bad decisions they made in the tech bubble.

Not entirely true. The cable companies are required by law to share the infrastructure set up. While paying dues and considerations to the local government. This make's the issue of royalties in instances like these such a touchy issue. When a company like Verizon pays a sizable share of said infrastructure, they (Verizon) wants the right to "tax" Microsoft, or any other company that uses said infrastructure. Which had no part in the construction or maintence of it. Microsoft doesn't want to cough up the dough.

Bad analogy I think. This is more akin to the oil companies complaining that the tax on gas should not be levied to help support our roadways. Verizon is a telecom company first and foremost, so it wants it's infrastructure to be treated no differently despite it's usage. You seem to grasp the precept on this particular situation though.

Don't worry. Most people's fears regarding this issue are completely unfounded. If they wern't, and got away with it we'd all have much larger issues to deal with then just internet censorship.

Microsoft is looking out for it's own interests. But that doesn't necessarily mean their interests are in your best interests. Even in this case. It's hard to say.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2011

It seems the telecommunication companies may have already gotten to the politicians. But it should come as no surprise as the bill was written by a democrat and the republicans own congress right now. Maybe after the '06 elections.

Well didn't the internet as we know it today start off as something far smaller? I'd imagine there wasn't massive financial backing then and that it sort of grew to become what it is fairly naturally.

Admittedly, I have a very limited understanding as to the history of the internet and how it works, so my reasoning could every easily be flawed.

"Back then", though, that financial backing came from the Defense Department.

My point, though, is that companies and users have no option but to use that infrastructure. A user wanting DSL does not have an option to choose anything but Verizon to obtain information/products/etc. from Microsoft. Thus, Verizon should not be given free reign to set prices how they see fit. A lot of what we are talking about here is a free market, where companies are free to peddle their services in any way they see fit. However, when government-imposed monopolies enter the equation, the idea of such a system goes right out the window. Verizon's contract is to provide a government service to citizens, not unlike how I am forced to use Tucson Water for the plumbing in my home.

The telcoms that set up these lines knew what they were getting into. Now that everything is in place and they find their profitability ideas aren't as fruitful as they thought, they essentially want to hold a ransom for good services that they were given government assistance to set up and own monopolies on initally.

I understand your point, but there's still the choice of choosing what internet service provider in your area. Verizon typically isn't the only game in town since they're required to share the infrastructure set up.

Also, you're neatly avoiding the regulations issue. Should companies that provide telecom/cable television services through the internet be held to the same regulations that Verizon is held to? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with standardized regulations.

Free market considerations are out of the window at this point. Especially in this case. Despite that, not everybody can or will agree on if internet is considered a public utility. Certainly Verizon does not. If they fail in this bid consider it a victory for the classifying of the internet infrastructure in place as being more fully in the public domain. Doesn't look like it's going to be that way though.

I can see plenty of outcomes if they fail completely in this bid. The less then desirable option could possibly be that they could stop trying to improve/expand the current infrastructure that's already in place.

Not necessarily. Nobody could of thought up what diverse uses the internet could satisfy. It will change over the years to be sure. So the laws must change with it. I do agree that they are trying to redefine the rules to protect their profitability though.

Net Neutrality and the Impending COPE Act
 

Right now, wheels are set into motion that would grant ISP providers, such as AOL-Time-Warner, Verizon, Comcast and others, the ability to control which websites are viewable through their service, and the speeds at which these sites may be accessed.

Currently, a principle known as "Net Neutrality" is in place to assert that the internet, like any forum for expression, is guaranteed fair and equal access by all in accordance with the rights granted by the First Amendment. This includes the right to view websites from foreign countries.
The problem is that this is not a guaranteed rule; until now, it's been tantamout to a "gentleman's agreement".

However, multi-million dollar lobbying campaigns are being waged in Washington that would institute a clear and defined system of control over what can be seen, much as a Cable television network can select its programs and commercials.

If the ISPs get their way, what could happen is that independent sites would have to pay fees in order to have their websites available. Many sites like Gamingforce are too small for these companies to bother with taxation, but let's say that Google is asked to pay AOL five million dollars a month and Google refuses. AOL would be allowed to block all Google ips from their service, or the site would be allowed to load but only at inconveniently slower speeds. Even worse, if Google's competitors ante up enough money, AOL could conceivably auto-route all would-be users to Yahoo or AskJeeves instead.

Furthermore, ISPs would be allowed to block any sites whose content is deemed dangerous to their corporate well-being. This places an instant kibosh on any grassroots campaigns that may exist to stop (hypothetical) shady dealings in which AOL-Time-Warner is somehow involved. If AOL doesn't want you to see it, they'd be granted full censorship rights.

All this is just a very cursory explanation of the issue. I encourage each of you to check out the following website and learn about the problem for yourselves. You may decide if it's serious or not. I don't mean to make this decision for anyone else. But from all the talk I've heard on the radio and seen online, this issue could have grave ramifications.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

If you think that is scary, you haven't seen the DOPA act (Link), which would essentially ban all sites that enable users to create and comment on original content. This would include just about all message boards, photo publishing sites, pages created by amateur musicians, educational resources with users created content, and most importantly bloggers commenting on difficult political and social issues (that I’m sure the U.S and other governments see as a huge thorn in their side). They can re-route traffic all they want, but sucking the soul out of internet will make premium routing a moot point.

I would really start preparing for the (digital) dark ages folks, the next few years are looking to be really rough. People can protest all they want, but it will just take one piece legislation passing to destroy the Internet as we know it (both here, and abroad, since even the UN can and has been be used to proliferate restrictive IP laws throughout the world.)

This law seems to only restrict access to these sites from schools.

Well, there was life before the net, and pretty soon, there will be life after the net, if this goes through. I like the net, but something like this was always going to happen. I predicted it a long time ago. I'm not exactly alone, either. In the long term, it may even be a good thing.

While there is always the possibility of Internet censorship, I doubt it will be as catastrophic as some people think. Even if certain ISP's start abusing their power with money, not all of them will. And of course people are going to fight this. The Internet is too widespread a forum for it to be completely regulated. I imagine putting such regulations on the 'Net would be akin to . . . doing the same for talking on the telephone. It's just a matter of different forms of communication.

Plus, like Soluzar said, there was life before the Internet, although I don't think censorship would be a good thing at all. And even if, one day, the Internet does somehow come to an end, or becomes too heavily censored, more forms of communication could be on the way.

It'd make competing against an ISP that chooses to block sites pretty easy though. How would AOL advertise a lack of access to Google as a positive? The competition could just say, "We allow you to access any site you please." and that should be the end of it.

They'd lie. Here in the UK, they lie all the time about their service. The number of ISPs who offer an "Unlimited" internet package, but yet have "stealth caps" is outrageous. The number of ISPs who claim not to have implemented packet shaping, but have, is outrageous.

Without Net Neutrality


On a more serious note... well, I guess there isn't much to add to what's been said. I'm not a fan of this kind of censorship; just how far do you think it would be spread if it passes in the states?