Internet deregulation
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4700430.stm
http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/186500824
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=map
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.a...QIwG&b=1539607

Are you guys currently aware of the vote to turn over the internet to the corporations? What are your thoughts on this issue?

It's not good. They use the word "deregulate," but it's really privatization. They're going to seize the market and give privileges to those who are willing to pay the most, just like the water and cable companies give the best services to the people willing to pay the most money. Same goes for the phone companies.

The reason this is happening is because the internet is particularly explosive right now, more so than ever. In ten years, there may not be any televisions in homes anymore; everything's being done on the internet. The companies see the opportunity to make a buck and they're jumping at it now. They want to be able to control who sees what, what is on the net, how fast you can see it, etc.

In the long run, this is not going to be good. Without regulation, they're going to censor people like crazy. And since politicians and corporations are good buddies, they will no doubt infringe on many of the rights that we have now, such as the freedom of speech. If you've got a liberal website, watch your ass.

I think this also gives the RIAA and MPAA a chance to actually crack down on downloaders. They can ally with corporations, and since corporations will be tightly controlling the data canals they provide, they could choose to get downlonaders.

Not to mention that it's going to push smaller business websites out of business, simply because they won't be able to compete with the big boys.

Hopefully none of this happens.

if it happens let's make a second internet out of paper cups and some string

gonna download some $w33t 455 songs over my giant-pipelined yarn connection

As opposed to giving the best services to those who aren't willing or unable to pay money?

As opposed to giving equal services to all. Having websites pay for access to pipelines goes contrary to everything the Internet stands for.

Also, I'm not sure about where you guys are, but here in Michigan, the Cable Companies came in and requested a government-enforced monopoly because otherwise they wouldn't be able to survive. In exchange they promised to give competitors access to their lines. This goes directly against that.

I got no problem with equal services to all - if it's government-funded and operated. But if a corporation is the principal provider, why shouldn't those who pay a premium price receive preferential treatment? That's my only point.

With that said, I'm against this 'deregulation.'

Your point is valid, but the line between corporate ownership and government ownership is a blur here. I daresay the federal and local governments paid more in tax breaks, incentives, and enforced monopolies than any corporation paid for getting these lines put in.

Under this, let's say a web music store was running and paid a big buck, then the companies could basically have iTunes run at a snail speed to encourage you to go to their services, which could have less selection or higher prices?

If so, then that example could be carbon copied to other types of sites and we could expect more pay services than ever before. The end of blogs?

Standardizing the rules of franchises isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's good for business if a company rapidly trying to expand it's operations has only one uniform standard to adhere too. Instead of thousands. Which is primarily what this bill is about. In the short term this provides people with more established options quickly. On the flip side, this might circumvent local governments ability to legistlate and protect the consumer's rights. Only a series of lawsuits could clearly establish that.

On the issue of network neutrality, I'm not really that concerned. Already we have broadband and dialup. That's akin to a "fast lane", "slow lane" service. It seems like too much of a partisan political battle. And not a very important one when you have Microsoft and Google on one side and Telecom/Cable companies on another. If the bad side of this legislation is truly manifested, this leaves plenty of room for competitors to move in on the market. Whether that be companies like Microsoft or local governments.

Charter Communications is owned by Paul Allen of Microsoft, so this leaves open a very good possibility that at least one ISP will respect network neutrality. Who knows.

The internet was largely build on the dime of the American taxpayer. The fact that its been greatly expanded by private enterprise shouldn't diminish that fact.

As it stands, yes, you could argue that this is essentially what is happening on the internet already. But, like you said, it works best when the government is the middle man. To take away something that people have been given at no extra charge and make them pay for it is wrong.

If you subtract the government from the internet equation, the prices are going to be a lot higher. Despite internet rates being at an all-time low, they're only bound to go up when corporations set up "tollbooths" for online streaming and downloading content. Companies are going to strip us of the privilege to download, stream, and visit certain sites and demand that we pay them more money in order to do it. Families across the First and Second World are just now starting to afford the internet because prices have dropped so low. There's no excuse for the telecommunications companies to raise the price of DSL or Broadband.

Imagine if, one day out of the blue, HBO made you pay a separate fee to watch the "Sopranos" or "Dead like Me." You still have to pay for HBO to begin with, but if you want the "Premium" content, you have to pay a little more. It's the same thing, and it's scandalous.

On the USER side, this makes sense, since the users have contracts with their ISPs. This bill wants to make each website have to pay every telecom to guarantee service. Makes absolutely no sense.

Oh my God! This is pretty disturbing. I can't believe I didn't hear of this before! I think if this happens, the internet as we know it will be gone forever. We won't be able to choose where to visit and go anymore and just remain limited to what our providers would offer. The way we easily exchange media would be over. It'd completely cripple everything that makes the net great. I think what these big companies fail to see is that the net is so explosive and active right now because it's free and open! I can't help but feel kinda naive for doing this, but I went ahead and sent letters to preserve internet-neutrality to all three of my appropriate senators.
Everyone should do also do this.

It's not like there's much they can or can't do with their precious networks. All their network does (and all they should have responsibility over) is the insurance of moving data. NOT choosing for us, the consumers, what data to pass through, what to censor and not pass through at all, and what to pass through only at a higher price. Thanks, but I can handle it myself when it comes to deciding what I want to be exposed to and what I don't.

This isn't freaking retail where the store owner gets to decide what to have available for cosumers to purchase. If these companies fail to see that, then perhaps the government should take over these networks so that they remain neutral.

-EDIT-
Would it count as spamming if we had links to savetheinternet.com in our sigs? After all the cause is so universal!

I also think that this topic should be in the general discussions section since it's so huge.

The House has approved the bill, but it's more of a preliminary battle. The vote in the Senate will be more of a deciding factor.

That's why it's improtant that we all bother our senators about it! Why is everyone so calm here? Is everyone just really unmotivated or am I overreacting? I swear I don't understand people. They let things happen right in front of their eyes and then complain about it when it's too late. I just posted about this in another online forum, and they just gave it a "meh...it'll work itself out attitude". If it wouldn't have been forced on us all, I'd say some people deserve this new "internet".

I don't know if anyone would put up this sort of thing. At the very least, would it be impossible to create a "new" internet?

Impossible? No. But it'd take considerable financial backing. If you assume that all the major companies (Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, the same people fighting this right now) spend the billions needed to start an infrastructure and governments/communities help, it could (I daresay would) happen.

I have no issue with this as long as some guidelines are followed:

1. ISPs and companies that actually implement that stuff must say so and are forbidden to actually refer to what they sell as an internet connection. I'm not sure what they could call it, but if you're not giving acces to the network as a whole, then you're lying by calling it an internet connection.

2. ISPs doing this become responsable for the content that goes through their pipes. Currently, to my knowledge, since ISPs act merely as carriers, they are not responsible for their users' actions. However, as soon as you start deciding what can and can't be accessed by your users and how they can do so, then you no longer act simply as a carrier, and whatever you do not block receives a form of implicit approval.

3. There has to be another ISP, independent of the one implementing filtering, offering unfiltered service of similar speed in the same area.

Hey, if some ISP thinks it can block everything "bad" on the net so as not to get sued into oblivion, and think people will pay for a crippled internet connection when they have other choices, then why not?

I think that's taking a extremely liberal interpetation of the bill. Ahh well. Just more theatrics of political fear-mongering for the election year.

Not necessarily.

This basically allows ISPs to pick and choose what their users can view on the Internet. Website x wants to be allowed on the ISP's whitelist, so what is the best way to get onto that list? Pay the ISP.

It may not be in the letter of the law, but it is HIGHLY likely that this is a consequence of the law. "Highly likely" as in "The sun will rise tomorrow" likely.

If they were able to set whatever prices they wanted, we'd all be paying $200/month for cable services instead of the government setting prices for the monopolies they allowed to grow.

If the telecommunications companies want to deregulate everything, whatever. But that means you lose your ability to hold a monopoly over everything, that's the deal. If Comcast can do whatever the fuck they want to me, then I get to choose someone other than Comcast for the same type of services.

While I'm not one who believes that all corporations are inherently evil this whole internet deregulation thing reeks of corporate corruption of the internet marketplace and the restriction of the consumers activities over the internet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020601624.html

Replace "Extremely Liberal" with "Documented Fact"

They're not trying to deny you anything. Only the rate at which massive amounts of traffic from giant internet firms like Google utlilze their infastructure. This is between two massive giant corporation consortums on opposing sides. So our "facts" differ. Not to mention this is only just one business acting on it's own accord to maintain it's profitability. Only years from now can we be certain this will start a trend. When it just might be the end of Verizon if consumers or the courts don't buy their interpetation or actions of this particular law. Which might not even be passed, or could be overturned by the Judiciary at a later day.

As for the political theatrics comment, this issue is solely politicized by comments like "Well those greedy corporations will censor liberal blogs!!!". While I don't have much faith in the system, I'm pretty sure that would be grounds for a legal challenge. A particularly successful one if the democrats regain control of... anything.

"Maintain its profitability". These companies have long since paid off the cost of all the lines they've laid. As a matter of fact, they're reneged on promises to lay more cable that they got tax breaks for. Source - That one gives one of the most in-depth explanations, which is why I linked to it in particular. If you want raw numbers of sources, it's all over Google as well. They're getting money for something that costs them essentially nothing.

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?