Member of the Month

partyandBS
December, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Net Neutrality (MUST READ)

profile picture
CooksCorner
Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22
Apparently ISP providers (internet providers) are lobbying to 'tier' internet access. Basically that means only websites that pay extra to a given ISP provider will get a full speed connection from that ISP provider.

Why would service providers do this you ask? Because Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are some of the very few companies that provide internet access, it would make them more money if websites had to 'pay to play'. Websites that didn't pay the upped amount would get less traffic from users who got frustrated with slow or dead connections, causing those same users to turn to competitors. The example being if your provider blocked or slowed down connectivity to Google so people turned to Yahoo.

This is a blatent infringment of the first amendment with private industry attempting to extend their private influence into a public sphere. Check out www.savetheinternet.com and loby to your congress-person. Stop this injustice.
May 23 2006 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
sneather
Posts: 6672 - Karma: 19
so since i still have dial up this wouldnt really affect me?
May 23 2006 10:49PM
0 0
profile picture
japollner
Posts: 1699 - Karma: 459
hehe, his icon says weiner
May 23 2006 10:51PM
0 0
profile picture
CooksCorner
Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22
Ya, cause you still use AOL or Netscape or something like that. Companies are spending millions to gain the right to limit our internet capabilities and in response we all need to call our congress representative to stop this from happening.
May 23 2006 10:56PM
0 0
profile picture
AFT
Posts: 160 - Karma: 10
HAHAHA

If you truely want to learn about net netrality, then watch this video...it will make it clear as day!

http://www.askaninja.com/news/2006/05/11/ask-a-ninja-special-delivery-4-net-neutrality
May 24 2006 8:28AM
0 0
profile picture
Hctiws_iks
Posts: 2077 - Karma: 25
i read about this a month back on factiva, i dont think it would pass.
Although, i never want to underestimate the stupidity of our government.
May 24 2006 8:32AM
0 0
profile picture
d-loc
Posts: 7479 - Karma: 15
uhh first off your very dumb dude.
second there are way more than that lets say TimeWarner cable's Road Runner, Cincinnati Bell's Zoomtown, AOL HighSpeed, Cinergy High Speed (runs through the power outlet)... just to name a few.

third, I have the standard roadrunner and get speed around 1.5Mbps, and have no sign of slowing down. my buddy has the enterprize roadrunner which is suppose to be 3-5Mbps and he says i get better speeds than him. and he pays 3 times what I do.
May 24 2006 8:43AM
0 0
profile picture
Schoening
Posts: 14332 - Karma: 1,268
hahahahhaha i reallllyyyy hope you were aiming that comment at cookscorner
May 24 2006 10:12AM
0 0
profile picture
d-loc
Posts: 7479 - Karma: 15
yes, yes I definatly was... sorry cant quote the first post. dumb programmers
May 24 2006 10:37AM
0 0
profile picture
CooksCorner
Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22
No shit their are lots of ISP providers, but thanks for the tip just the same. I was commenting on the possibility that those providers could use their position of power to channel people into seeing what they want them to see.

I wasn't asking for your oppinion of my intelligence, nor was i requesting a pseudo-relevent anecdote, i was simply trying to highlight a potential violation of the first amendment. But seriously thanks for your contribution.
May 24 2006 11:11AM
0 0
profile picture
Schoening
Posts: 14332 - Karma: 1,268
wow......thats pretty funny.
May 24 2006 11:12AM
0 0
profile picture
d-loc
Posts: 7479 - Karma: 15
oh they also could have done this 10 years ago, i really am not seeing your point man.

and seeing what i want to see? whats that mean? give false download reading or something?
May 24 2006 11:16AM
0 0
profile picture
ski_cartel
Posts: 6598 - Karma: 18
true enough man
May 24 2006 11:19AM
0 0
profile picture
CooksCorner
Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22
The interent was too young 10 years ago.

They could make access to websites that paid more to the provider faster. For example NS doenst have the funds to pay off service providers but Google does. Google could pay and users could consequently get there quickly. NS who couldnt pay would get shoved down a 'tier' and would get a lower level connectivity, resulting in slower page loads and anything associated with your surfing experience.

Check the website i posted. This has already happened and unless people take a stand it will continue to happen. The internet is a grey area between the public and private sectors and capitalizm (as much as im a fan) is looking to take advantage of this unusual set of circumstances.
May 24 2006 11:23AM
0 0
profile picture
Badfish2
Posts: 3453 - Karma: 21
it really has nothing to do with the ISP directly to your modem at home. (maybe it does, depending on your ISP). It has everything to do with the speed that some websites and services work, depending on how much they pay the ISPs to be on their faster network. It also implies that ISPs will slow down the traffic on purpose for the the lower tiered services and sites.

So, if you're like d-loc and are paying extra money for his hyper-fast connection, there will still be lots of sites and services that will run slower. d-loc will then be angry.
May 24 2006 11:31AM
0 0
profile picture
Badfish2
Posts: 3453 - Karma: 21
Google is fighting it hard..
they're trying to get a stranglehold so that they can eliminate competition, or profit from things like VoIP....
Vonage and other internet phone services (skype) are starting to really cut into their long distance profits. WHat better way to get it back then to choke the service, or have them pay the extra charges to graduate to another tier... or have them raise their rates so that people don't buy vonage in the first place.
It's pretty fucked up.
May 24 2006 11:36AM
0 0
profile picture
CooksCorner
Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22
Either way, trying to hedge in my access to data is a violation of the first amendment and needs to be stopped.
May 24 2006 11:41AM
0 0
profile picture
Timmy_G
Posts: 3735 - Karma: 15
I dont know if I really care. Actually, I dont care at all. My pc is still going to be fast..
May 24 2006 11:46AM
0 0
profile picture
d-loc
Posts: 7479 - Karma: 15
dude the internet is about 50 years old... no way it was young, it was 40 years old bro
May 24 2006 12:17PM
0 0
profile picture
GFELLER.
Posts: 640 - Karma: 13
i hate you...the modern internet we know today was young ten years ago. the true internet i guess you could say was invented 40+ yrs ago, but it was just a way to connect government departments together, not anywhere close to commercial use
May 24 2006 1:12PM
0 0
profile picture
SkiBumDreams
Posts: 560 - Karma: 10
i am afraid it is far from a violation of your first amendment rights. when you sign up to a specific web host you are agreeing to their specific terms of service. (this is not you and your isp this is who the owners of a website sign up with to host their site) so if a websites owners dont like a specific web hosts terms they can find another.

also on a completely other relevant note the internet is NOT regulated by any countries government. this tiered service bullshit has been floating around in different forms for a long freaking time.
May 24 2006 1:24PM
0 0
profile picture
d-loc
Posts: 7479 - Karma: 15
hey all im saying is the internet WAS around in 1957, sure for gov use but still. i post mearly facts and the fact of the matter is that 50 years is not young
May 24 2006 1:27PM
0 0
profile picture
CooksCorner
Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22
And all im saying is post facts that are more than loosly related to the topic at hand. Quit telling people that they are stupid and craft an argument that enlightens them...oh glorious one.
May 24 2006 1:37PM
0 0
profile picture
d-loc
Posts: 7479 - Karma: 15
well then ok... the topic at hand doesnt apply to any of us unless we are multi million dollar coporations
May 24 2006 1:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Capt.Flannel
Posts: 10928 - Karma: 36
winner: d-loc.
May 24 2006 1:57PM
0 0
profile picture
cracko
Posts: 2904 - Karma: 12
agreed^, 2 votes for d loc
May 24 2006 2:03PM
0 0
profile picture
CooksCorner
Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22
Either I'm failing to explain, or you're failing to understand. Teired browsing affects all users of the internet, the viewing public and the website owners because either way the ability to access content is limited.
May 24 2006 2:53PM
0 0
profile picture
theBOSS.
Posts: 4705 - Karma: 496
d-loc you continue to prove how much of a fucking idiot you are.

First off, the first array of networked computers was ARPANET, which was created in 1969 as a defense agency project. That's some 12 years after you said the "internet" began.

The modern internet that we know today was in it's infant stages in the early-mid 90's. Sure ARPANET ahs been around for some 25 years (not 40 like you had said), but in the early 90's, a majority of Americans didn't even know what a computer was used for, much less how they connected to each other. ISP's came around in the early 90's, and at this time the internet was a government regulated network still.

Now, you claim the ISP's could have done this for years... WRONG again. The internet is still federally controlled, and current telecommunications laws prevent private industries from taking it over. However, new bills gaining support in the senate would effectively cancel net neutrality and turn control over to the ISP's. When this happens, they will get the power and control over the internet to do things like this.

Finally, what difference does it make whether or not he listed all the ISP's you can think of. He said that Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are SOME of the main players, not all of them. That would take hours to list. What matters is that those are the main ISP's that hold most of the broadband marketshare and therefore have the most control.

Please, in the future, at least take the time to read the wikipedia entries you are qouting and get your fucking information correct. Many members of this site may believe you because they don't know any better, but in all reality you have no idea what you are talking about yet continue to push your bullshit arguments and assert yourself like you know everything.
May 24 2006 3:24PM
0 0
profile picture
reBlocke
Posts: 762 - Karma: 1,502
@d-loc
It's an issue now only because it's a hot topic in Congress. It's like how abortion/stem cell research/etc. become highly debated topics for periods of time, and almost ignored in others- even though the issue is always the same.

And there are hundreds of ISPs, but that's really irrelevent. The telecommunications industry (the infrastructure that the internet runs on), is owned by 4 major corporations- BellSouth, AT&T, Verizon, and Quest. They sell their bandwidth to smaller ISPs who in turn sell it to consumers, so if they choose to limit bandwidth to certain sites, it will be limited regardless of what ISP you are directly buying from.

Congress has been doing a decent job in strengthening network nuetrality. http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/hr5417-109.pdf
has been introduced and http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5252ih.txt.pdf
is being revised to be less lenient.


However, many ISPs won't restrict bandwidth because it's already a legal tarpit. And there is a lot of support for Net Neutrality from corperate sites.

"Campaigns have also been launched by content providers (including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and Amazon.com) in support of neutrality and regulation ([Don't Mess with the Net]), and by service providers (including AT&T and Verizon) against it.([Hands Off the Internet])" (Wikipedia)
May 24 2006 3:26PM
0 0
profile picture
CooksCorner
Posts: 3939 - Karma: 22
T-bird and Cruz thanks for your info, you guys really know whats up.
May 24 2006 4:17PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)