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.