Net Neutrality

[Lucretius]

Net Neutrality is a current issue facing all website ownbers at the present time. To quote http://www.savetheinternet.com :

What is this about?

This is about Internet freedom. "Network neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.

But Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. There's currently no law on the books protecting net neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now, the future of the Internet is at risk.

What is network neutrality?

Network neutrality — or "net neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With net neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

Net neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online — and the public demands Congress not dismantle it. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech

I want you all to go through that site and find out where you stand and what, if any, action you plan to take.

[Sparkfist]

Yeah I've read about it. I don't like the idea, I think capitalism is good and all, but this is going to throw us back 10 years in how the internet works. Comcast is at the front of this and I know they just can't have enough money.

To explain; they claim they need re-embursment for all the fiber-optics they layed out to get us to the internet speed we have today. That is bull! The fiber-optics that layout the backbone of the internet were layed down over 10 years ago. The distrobution point that leads to DSL and Cable lines is really the thing that has caught up to the speed fiber-optic has.

Lets not forget that fiber-opitcs are not expensive. They movied over plasic years ago from glass. Buying miles of the stuff is not that much more then CAT5 cable. Lets also not forget the dark fiber that is lying in the ground. Fiber-opics left unused after they upgraded to a higher bandwidth. They could pick up that dark fiber and use it to enhance the internet backbone, and it wouldn't cost as much as laying new fiber over that whole area.

Claims that they spend a lot of money and they need more to make up the difference. They are no better then Microsoft when they released 98 and ME and still charged over $100 for really upgrades of 95, and the damn OS still sucked! I know bussiness want to make money but killing the source of your money by charging for nearly every feature is like the RIAA requesting 30% of Satellite Radio income.

You don't kill your crops to make a quick buck!

[SpongeBuell]

I've heard about that stuff a few times before. If I get the chance, I'll probably send a letter to the Minnesota Senators expressing my views about the whole thing. Of course, I've been telling myself for about a year that I'd be telling the city council to put a stoplight at this one intersection, but I still haven't done that, either

[Lucretius]

I brushed it off as rediculous, at first. FIgured it was a bad rumour about a company owning the internet. I ended up being more correct then I'd have liked. I'll ask my senator as well, and them guys in the house, too. It's just so insane, but if they're ever successful people, it will hurt everyone here. Ben barely makes ends meet as it is, this will not help. Do some avtive democray-ing, guys.

[Sparkfist]

Really what this will do is make broadband ISPs charge for things like video, FTP, SSH or even the worst thing torrent. For Ben I don't think the price would really go up, it's the end users that suffer. Its silly to think people would want to go from how the net is to a pay-per-service.

Think of it this way, going form driving the Inter-state highway now, to, having to pay a toll to use the left lanes for the simple fact you can go faster in them. Or a plainer comparison is the internet will become like Comcast Cable. There's the basic internet, Internet plus (you have some added features (channels), then theirs Premium Internet so you'd have everything.

I don't think we need or want that. I don't like the idea of paying extra to watch videos, or download files via P2P (torrent). Again I'm not a socialist or a communist, well not completely, I think we just need to understand that there are things that have to be free and open.

If any of you remember the article about the Google rumors? One was that Google would buy up the dark fiber and use it to make their own ISP. I'd like to see that as a complany like Google would be fair and with compatision the other companies will lower thier prices.

It's silly to think these companies need more money or do what they plan with the internet. We're behind when it comes to who has internet and speed/features, to asian countries like South Korea (nearly every house hold has internet) and China (has IPTV already).

[NiN^_^NiN]

Trust greedy american corperations to try n screw the internet up

[gannon]

There are 65,536 ports on each IP, I'd hate to have to pay for each one
But yeah, fairly rediculous

[daguuy]

does this mean they failed to get rid of Net Neutrality? i'm lost... were democrats voting for or against Net Neutrality?

[benheck]

This bill is, at the moment, sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Without the protection it's possible companies might exploit us, but in a way they already do (video is a no-go for dial-up, broadband costs people more, ads slapped everywhere etc) The internet is by no means a perfect democracy, but a "pay for play" would suck as it'd turn the 'Net into a TV (which was free and now costs an insane amount for no choices)

My bottom line opinion is I wouldn't lose any sleep over this for now. People are used to the way the 'net works, if companies start messing around with it people will turn on them and take their Almighty Dollars elsewhere, which will get a company's attention a lot faster than any law passed or on the table on Capital Hill.

Also don't get TOO political with this topic (such as using the D and R words) as that's a taboo subject on these boards as it can lead to nasty flame-wars.

[Extreme_Jesus]

This is quite a serious issue

Passing an American law doesnt protect other countries from the same thing, this may not matter in the develping world yet. But considering how corrupt many of their governmetns are this will need to be applied outside of america

Britain doesnt have too many "big corparations" to worry about and most of them are all after government contracts for this and that. So were ok for the time being but the problem is still there

[Sparkfist]

It's not about protecting other countries or aiding developing countries. This is soully about wheather or not the companies that offer internet connection can change their charging pattern. While this could affect everyone in the world, it's going to harm people in the U.S. more. A lot of bussinesses use the internet either to help sell their product, the only place they sell, or advertising.

If we loose Net Nuetrality, it's going to be a mess. Internet for me on my SuSE box is already limited as I can't watch wmv or Quicktime movies. If video playback becomes limited or worse a cap of file downloads is impossed I'm going to become insane. Really this kind of topic shouldn't be delegated by politics who know absolutly nothing about the IT field, it should be done by the people who are imporving the internet all the time. Universies, Unix (or like) OS developers (as the internet is built on Unix) and other Internet Technologies.