Have you been following this? (internets in dilemma)

Bucknub · **Have you been following this? (internets in dilemma) -** 06-09-2006, 11:59 PM

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081 ... &subj=zdnn

I honestly dont quite understand what is going on (got a small brain)

but is this 'net neutrality' a bad thing for us?

or does net neutrality = internet freedom and the House has rejected that, so the internet is screwed now?

or because they've rejected it, it's not going to happen now?

06-10-2006, 12:01 AM

its been on and off since the early 90's. Net Neutrality is a good thing for us.

Jin-Roh · 06-10-2006, 12:03 AM

yeah... but what is it?! eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

Bucknub · 06-10-2006, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acideyez

its been on and off since the early 90's. Net Neutrality is a good thing for us.

but it says they've rejected it. so we're boned?

jin roh - http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

Judas · 06-10-2006, 12:06 AM

read about it in wired a while back ... not too sure wtf its all about. something about our gov regulating / monitoring what we do on the internetweb.

Machette · 06-10-2006, 12:12 AM

It changes what the Internet is and makes it into something more like Cable TV where the local cable company decides which channels are on the box.

This is a pretty important issue as well. Here's some good commentary.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmar ... index.html

Money quote:

William L. Smith, the chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., recently told the Washington Post that BellSouth should, for example, be able to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc. or vice versa. "If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first-class ticket," Smith said. "In the shipping business, I can get two-day air or six-day ground."

In my view, executives like Smith forget that they get the use of public resources, like the airwaves and public rights of way, on which they have built their businesses and made a lot of money. As such, they shouldn't be able to squeeze out some Web sites in favor of others. This would be a betrayal of the public trust.

Tripper · 06-10-2006, 01:11 AM

Don't China do something like that?

Bleuachdu · 06-10-2006, 01:23 AM

This has the potential to limit free enterprise and fair competition in my opinion.

Short Hand · 06-10-2006, 01:26 AM

It is all money in these greedy fuckers pockets. AT&T, Verizon ect have just filled government officials pockets with cash, and have whisked them away.

Blase · 06-10-2006, 03:46 AM

Net Neutrality for Dummies, Written by Blase.

What is net neutrality?

Net Neutrality means excactly what it says, that the net is neutral and completly unbiased.

Without Net Neutrality, your ISPs could becomed biased towards certain sites. By becoming biased towards certain sites your ISP can allow you to access these sites at amazingly fast speeds.

But wouldn't that be a good thing?

Yes and no.

Yes because without Net Neutrality you can now access certain sites at blazing fast speeds.

However, it's overwhelmingly a bad thing because you wouldn't be able to access most sites at all.

Why wouldn't I be able to access certain sites?

Simply because those sites aren't paying the ISP money to allow people to access their sites.

Under the COPE act (which is the anti-net neutrality act) companies will now be able to pay ISPs to bias their site, which will allow people to access them quickly.

Sites that do not pay this money to give their sites the bandwidth required will be unable to compete with the sites that do, as most people would be unwilling to go to one site that takes 30 seconds to load when they can go to another site that serves the same function in 5 seconds.

Bottom line, who gets fucked over here?

Everyone on this forum would get fucked over, because without Net Neutrality the very exsistence of this forum is threatened. Sites and forums like GF1 face extinction as ISPs will reduce the bandwidth available to normal internet subscribers to access sites like this.

Who else get's fucked over? Small companies that sell their wares over the internet, as well as operators of independent web sites that operate in US.

Let's say Adelphia became the only ISP provider overnight. Now, at the moment they would have to allow equal rights to every website on the internet in terms of availablity to their internet subscribers. Take away Net Neutrality, and suddenly Adelphia can decide what they want you to see and hear while on the internet.

So in conclusion, Net Neutrality is the free speech of the internet, and it is being taken away very slowly by the people who connect you to the internet.

SoLiDUS · 06-10-2006, 03:57 AM

Am I allowed to say "I told you so" or will Tripper say that I'm a conspiracy nut again ? It's getting closer, friends.

Blase · 06-10-2006, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

Am I allowed to say "I told you so" or will Tripper say that I'm a conspiracy nut again ? It's getting closer, friends.

It's going to happen. There's no way the government is going to stand up for Net Neutrality when they could be making millions off it with tax or something like that, not to mention the actual people voting for this are getting paid by ISP companies.

Free Internet was a novelty, it'll be just a little while longer until it's just like everything else. Regulated, taxed, controlled, censored, ectera ectera ectera.

Makes me wonder though, this net neutrality thing only applies to the US. I'm assuming that people in the rest of the world won't be as affected?