House rejects Net Neutrality

[JustAsking]

This is bad. It passed the House and will be on to the Senate in September. Start calling your Senators. The last thing we want is commercial carriers holding sites hostage to pay for bandwidth, or blocking them altogether.

 

[findfirefox]

I really freaking about this because my ISP is one of the companys that are pushing for "their rights" I use Cingular (Owned by AT&T)...

Other companys that are evil, Comcast, Time-Warner, and many others.

Companys that are good, Google and Ebay...

 

[tallguypns]

An interesting point I noted in this article, to paraphrase: A certain Republican representative is saying that he wants the internet to be without government regulation (in reference to all net sites being treated equally). I find this so interesting since it is often republican lawmakers that attempt to shut down sites like this one.

 

[JustAsking]

An interesting point I noted in this article, to paraphrase: A certain Republican representative is saying that he wants the internet to be without government regulation (in reference to all net sites being treated equally). I find this so interesting since it is often republican lawmakers that attempt to shut down sites like this one.

Tall,
Yes, except that in this case its backwards. The Gov't regulation he is talking about is the "Net Neutrality" regulation, which prevents carriers from charging sites for bandwidth, and prevents them from blocking sites.

So that Republican (and most of the rest of them) wants no government regulation that protects Net Neutrality.

Without that protection, Comcast could decide to block this site if they want to, or charge the site money for decent bandwidth.

I am less concerned about the fee per bandwidth (although that is bad enough). I just don't want to see a handful of big corporations being able to determine what sites get on the web and which sites don't.

Call or write your senators.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I am less concerned about the fee per bandwidth (although that is bad enough). I just don't want to see a handful of big corporations being able to determine what sites get on the web and which sites don't.

Call or write your senators.

Consider it done.

 

[b.c.]

Tall,
Yes, except that in this case its backwards. The Gov't regulation he is talking about is the "Net Neutrality" regulation, which prevents carriers from charging sites for bandwidth, and prevents them from blocking sites.

So that Republican (and most of the rest of them) wants no government regulation that protects Net Neutrality.

Without that protection, Comcast could decide to block this site if they want to, or charge the site money for decent bandwidth.

I am less concerned about the fee per bandwidth (although that is bad enough). I just don't want to see a handful of big corporations being able to determine what sites get on the web and which sites don't.

Call or write your senators.

The Republican party is made up of those with an exceptional gift for double speak, smoke and mirrors. They always make the Democratic party out to be the party of big government regulation and interference, when in fact it is THEY who want to legislate our lives, they who pursue policies that effect us in various ways on a daily basis.

Better still than calling your senators, call those companies and carriers who were backing the Republicans on this one. Cancel your services with them.

Seems to me if people showed their disapproval by refusing to do business with them and boycotting their products they'd get the message.

I think nothing hurts a rich fat bastard more than a good kick in the wallet.

 

[dong20]

.....The Gov't regulation he is talking about is the "Net Neutrality" regulation, which prevents carriers from charging sites for bandwidth, and prevents them from blocking sites.

So that Republican (and most of the rest of them) wants no government regulation that protects Net Neutrality.

Without that protection, Comcast could decide to block this site if they want to, or charge the site money for decent bandwidth.

I am less concerned about the fee per bandwidth (although that is bad enough). I just don't want to see a handful of big corporations being able to determine what sites get on the web and which sites don't.

Call or write your senators.

I can't write my Senator....sorry.:tongue:

First let me say I am opposed to any and all government regulation of Internet provisioning and content for its own sake. By this I’m talking about regulation beyond what the normal rule of law or standard business modelling provides for in any form of information delivery channel and that’s all the Internet is. If illegal content or services are delivered for example, then existing legislation should and largely does exist to deal with it.

I read the article, it’s interesting but hardly groundbreaking, and most of the provisioning issues that are being discussed have existed for years. The potential commercial censorship and marginalisation angles are what concerns me, less from a commercial angle than a ‘moral one’ though.

This phenomenon has long existed of course and I wouldn’t want to see this become ‘the norm’ any more than it already is but I don't entirely see it as Government role to enforce this. The idea that all websites and networks be treated ‘equally’ is naive, and this situation has never really existed in any true sense and nor do I believe in a purely commercial sense that it should.

The concept of ‘fast lanes’ for example for video, downloads or premium content? That situation has been in existence for years as has traffic prioritisation for major players, just largely ‘behind the scenes’. There are a whole raft of technologies supporting this that would run to pages and pages but they’re hardly interesting enough to fill up a post here.

JA, FWIW I largely agree with you, except on the bandwidth payment issues.
This is an excellent thread, and has many hidden aspects and misconceptions which I hope will get explored here, thanks.

 

[Lex]

A resource from our previous discussion:

Save the Internet

 

[danglybanger]

sigh... I run a site that is likely to get shut down enough

Goddamn it

Slade

 

[Dr Rock]

if you think writing to senators will make any difference, i can offer you a great deal on this really nifty bridge

 

[rob_just_rob]

The Republican party is made up of those with an exceptional gift for double speak, smoke and mirrors. They always make the Democratic party out to be the party of big government regulation and interference, when in fact it is THEY who want to legislate our lives, they who pursue policies that effect us in various ways on a daily basis.

if you think writing to senators will make any difference, i can offer you a great deal on this really nifty bridge

These two posts together sum up my view of the situation. There's very little meaningful difference between the Dems and the Pubs (or between the Libs and Reformers, here).

This will probably set off red flags everywhere, but it'll take blood in the streets (and a lot of it) before we see any significant changes in our governmental "options".

 

[JustAsking]

dong20,
Yes, this particular situation has a lot of nuances. I am usually not in favor of tons of government regulation, but there are some cases where some regulation benefits the "Commonwealth". Such as regulating the highway system, the radio spectrum, etc. The highway system is a pure economic play, but the radio spectrum is part of a free press. The Internet falls into both areas.

I see the biggest problem in the "free press" area, and I tend to agree with you that the economic interests are not that different than in other industries. Any legislation that would compromise the Internet as a medium for the free exchange of ideas would be unacceptable in my opinion. So that is the area I am most concerned about.

Rock,
I hear ya, man. There is so much big money behind the lobbying for this that it disgusted even the most jaded Washington observers. However, I am operating under the theory that Republicans are concerned about their November reelection. Because of that, the voter still has some influence. You can't accept Comcast's money if you are not in office.

Lex,
Was this topic already discussed and I missed it? Sorry about that.

 

[dong20]

dong20,
Yes, this particular situation has a lot of nuances. I am usually not in favor of tons of government regulation, but there are some cases where some regulation benefits the "Commonwealth". Such as regulating the highway system, the radio spectrum, etc. The highway system is a pure economic play, but the radio spectrum is part of a free press. The Internet falls into both areas.

I see the biggest problem in the "free press" area, and I tend to agree with you that the economic interests are not that different than in other industries. Any legislation that would compromise the Internet as a medium for the free exchange of ideas would be unacceptable in my opinion. So that is the area I am most concerned about.

JA, I feel the same, and while I think there should be a core legislative framework to address illegal online activity as with any other media, beyond that, to me, it's a commercial environment. I can see a regulatory role to prevent carriers, ISPs etc being owned or controlled by too few players but that should be done under existing competition legislation.

It does worry me a little that if, as seems likely. the US Senate follow the house then some large ISP or carrier may see it as a green light to abuse their postion leaving it to consumers to pay the price, literally. The market will stabilise again but perhaps with a different business model and that may well not be the same as we currently have; i.e. paying for access site by site may become the nearer the norm than the exception it is today. I think that right now would run a risk of killing 'todays' Internet.

I believe Government has no role in regulation beyond this and especially none with regard to content or access censorship. So long as we stay away from the like of Time Warner et al we in the 'west' have relatively free (but not unmonitored) access to most content (yes folks not all sites are google-able) but that's far from the norm worldwide.

The fast growth of 'the web' in the late '90s, way ahead of legislation, stupid movies like The Net and Hackers led to a popular perception of it being 'wild, free and uncontrolled', at once dangerous and exciting. While in some respects that observation has some merit virtually nothing online is truly anonymous or untraceable.

It makes me smile that so many folk still expect the Internet to somehow be or remain entirely free and unregulated and thus unaccountable and 'anonyomous' whereas in reality that's never or rarely been the case, and certainly not for most of the last 10 years.

While I can see why many have a vested interest in keeping it 'the way it is' I just don't see that being the case. Those who believe it can be otherwise are really just kidding themselves. I would like to be wrong on this but....

But in a sentence,as far as is possible keep Government out of the Internet.

 

[Lex]

...

Lex,
Was this topic already discussed and I missed it? Sorry about that.

JustAsking--
No worries. It was brought up prior to legislation being passed or seriously discussed. This (your thread) is a good reminder with great timing.

 

[madame_zora]

These two posts together sum up my view of the situation. There's very little meaningful difference between the Dems and the Pubs (or between the Libs and Reformers, here).

This will probably set off red flags everywhere, but it'll take blood in the streets (and a lot of it) before we see any significant changes in our governmental "options".

I hear ya- I've got a collection of letters from the offices of senators and congressmen who reply to my protests with form letters of why they've chosen to vote against my wishes time after time. I don't see what progress I am making, with the possible exception of getting myself put on government watch lists.

I no longer believe the solution exists inside the system, as it stands.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I hear ya- I've got a collection of letters from the offices of senators and congressmen who reply to my protests with form letters of why they've chosen to vote against my wishes time after time. I don't see what progress I am making, with the possible exception of getting myself put on government watch lists.

I no longer believe the solution exists inside the system, as it stands.

Excellent... to the barricades, then! I'll bring the torches.

*sighs* If only it were that simple.

 

[madame_zora]

Excellent... to the barricades, then! I'll bring the torches.

*sighs* If only it were that simple.

Anarchy for all! Now, if only anarchy stood for more than smoking dope and sticking our heads in the sand.....although that's not a bad start.

 

[SurferGirlCA]

if you think writing to senators will make any difference, i can offer you a great deal on this really nifty bridge

I wonder how many of them even know what the internet is, beyond the abstract definition (if they know that). Somehow I don't see Robert Byrd or Trent Lott surfin' the net.

 

[Dr Rock]

*sighs* If only it were that simple.

it is that simple. the only difficult part is getting enough people to see it.

 

[JustAsking]

I wonder how many of them even know what the internet is, beyond the abstract definition (if they know that). Somehow I don't see Robert Byrd or Trent Lott surfin' the net.

You ain't kidding. Read Senator Ted Stevens primer on how the Internet works.

Good point. I called my two Senators. At the office of one Senater (DeWine, R-Ohio) they had no idea what I was talking about. I was not surprised. At the other office (Voinovich R-Ohio), they knew all about it. I was also not surprised.

dong20,
I don't know what to say. You are far too realistic for a forum full of us whiners. It spoils all the fun.