|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
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. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
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.
I wouldn't be surprised if all these scary tactics were taken from a public interest group tied to Microsoft. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I was speaking idiomatically. |
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.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
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. FELIPE NO |
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. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
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. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Most amazing jew boots |
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. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
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.
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.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
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/ How ya doing, buddy?
Last edited by Crash "Long-Winded Wrong Answer" Landon; May 18, 2006 at 05:51 PM.
|
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.) What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
FELIPE NO
Last edited by Soluzar; May 18, 2006 at 06:25 PM.
|
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. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Prepare the PLANET SMASHAA
|
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.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
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? This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
What is the world, but that which we make of it?
|