how-to block ads
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| Threat to Net Neutrality
From "Save The Internet":
Congress is pushing a law that would abandon Network Neutrality, the Internet’s First Amendment. Network neutrality prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you — based on what site pays them the most. Your local library shouldn’t have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to have its Web site open quickly on your computer.
Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech. If the public doesn’t speak up now, Congress will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign by telephone and cable companies that want to decide what you do, where you go, and what you watch online.
This isn’t just speculation — we’ve already seen what happens elsewhere when the Internet’s gatekeepers get too much control. Last year, Canada’s version of AT&T — Telus— blocked their Internet customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating. And Shaw, a major Canadian cable company, charges an extra $10 a month to subscribers who dare to use a competing Internet telephone service.
How would the gutting of Network Neutrality affect you?
* Google users—Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
* Innovators with the “next big idea”—Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the “slow lane” with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.
* Ipod listeners—A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.
* Political groups—Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay “protection money” for their websites and online features to work correctly.
* Nonprofits—A charity’s website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can’t pay dominant Internet providers for access to “the fast lane” of Internet service.
* Online purchasers—Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices—distorting your choice as a consumer.
* Small businesses and tele-commuters—When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won’t be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.
* Parents and retirees—Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.
* Bloggers—Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips—silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.
Corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we’ve come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don’t like:
* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
* In April, Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet’s open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they’ll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet.
Click here two see a two minute explanatory video. | |
Sparrow
Crystal Sky
Premium
join:2002-12-03
Sachakhand
| Deep sigh...
There is so much rhetoric in the links posted by those who stand to gain from the bill's passage, and the links explaining this bill, that it seems to be the perfect smoke-screen to push this bill through, unnoticed by the masses who stand to be adversely affected by its passage.
This is the first I hear of COPE and even those in favor of this bill are complaining with its apparent speed from draft to mark-up:
"...the short time frame between the release of the draft and this hearing has presented some interesting challenges in reviewing the bill..."
Summary of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006:
»www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/1882
"Mark up" to begin April 25, 2006:
»www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/2058
»energycommerce.house.gov/108/Mar···1848.htm
A perfect example of the danger expressed:
This organization is a paying member of the Policy Council, and is solely responsible for the information below. »policycouncil.nationaljournal.co···A138.htm
--
"Be simple, be earnest and spread that simplicity throughout everything you do." | |
catseyenu
Ack Pfft
Premium
join:2001-11-17
Fix East | Thanks Crystal.
So they're trying to slip things in that would have a negative affect on the stated purpose? | |
Sparrow
Crystal Sky
Premium
join:2002-12-03
Sachakhand
| You're welcome, catseyenu  .
The stated purpose of the bill and the all the negative repercussions for the little guy are clearly stated in SUMware 's original post.
After following the links and my own searches on the COPE bill, I came upon more "pros" (i.e.: the paid lobbyists of the cable and telephone providers who want this bill passed and where one drowns in rhetoric) than the simple "cons" as posted by SUMware and the link he provided: »www.savetheinternet.com/=threat
In short, it is another attempt to close what we can consider the "Mom & Pop" enterprises by the effective lobbying of the mega-corporations.
--
"Be simple, be earnest and spread that simplicity throughout everything you do." | |
SpannerITWks
Premium
join:2005-04-22 | reply to SUMware
They just don't stop do " THEY "
And neither should we stop stopping " THEM " otherwise ...?!
Spanner
--
I Only Know What I Know, But I'm Learning all The Time - Stay Safe - Spanner intheWorks
/SpannerITWks | |
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| reply to SUMware
My own personal feelings about this is that it will kill off the internet. If I can't reach the sites I want/need or if I have to pay additional new fees to reach them I will just drop my internet service (including my cable TV service) and I imagine many others would do the same. Perhaps they need a precipitous loss of *RGUs* to convince them of their error.
--
Get hpHOSTS! Member ASAP
hpHOSTS Online
Paranoia is no substitute for understanding. | |
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| reply to SUMware
Panel dumps Net neutrality
From SFgate:
Panel dumps Net neutrality
House committee drops amendment banning two-tier Internet
Verne Kopytoff, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, April 27, 2006Internet carriers would have a free hand to charge the likes of Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and eBay Inc. extra for faster delivery of services to consumers under a bill approved by a House committee Wednesday.
The vote, 42-12, brings a two-tier Internet one step closer to reality despite the wishes of a broad coalition of Web site operators and public interest groups that insist the fees will crush innovation.
The Web companies had hoped to amend Wednesday's legislation, thereby enshrining the status quo of "network neutrality," the catchphrase that has come to represent a system in which all Internet traffic is treated equally. But the effort failed when an amendment introduced by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., was defeated 34-22 in a largely party line vote earlier in the day.
The possibility of separate slow and fast lanes on the Internet has galvanized many of the technology industry's biggest companies, including Google, Yahoo, eBay, Microsoft Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. Although normally rivals, they have forged a united front to oppose the bill they say will give some Web sites an unfair advantage over others and alter the Web's landscape for years to come. | |
no__1__here
Premium
join:2003-10-13
Tomball, TX
| reply to SUMware
Re: Threat to Net Neutrality
Really, that's ok if the "big" companies continue to choose to not pay the carriers. If no one pays for "the fast lane" then in effect we're right where we are today. Or am I missing something?
I do not like the idea and am fully supportive of neutrality. That said, this is just (some might say greedy) capitalism. Let the market decide if this is worthy, not your (and my) useless senator/house rep. Congress is all about lobbies, not what the majority wants. Been that way for a long time... Really not at all surprised by this.
Thanks for the posts & updates SUMware .  | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by no__1__here : If no one pays for "the fast lane" then in effect we're right where we are today. Or am I missing something? You're missing a significant amount of information. It's not merely paying for the "fast lane." The owner of the pipes -in this case- AT&T & Verizon, can arbitrarily decide to slow down if not entirely block traffic to any particular site that hasn't paid the freight or with which directly competes with it's own overpriced, proprietary flavored services such as VOIP. See also the following byline as one of many soon to be occuring examples if the telcos take over the net: »www.freepress.net/news/13604
--
Choose Net Neutrality Now or Lose It: www.savetheinternet.com | |
BandHeight
join:2004-08-30
Portland, TX | reply to SUMware
What do the communications companies use for lobbying the government these days?
Perhaps, "Give us what we we want, and we'll build more 'spy rooms' for you," is all it takes. | |
ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to no__1__here
said by no__1__here :Really, that's ok if the "big" companies continue to choose to not pay the carriers. If no one pays for "the fast lane" then in effect we're right where we are today. Or am I missing something? I do not like the idea and am fully supportive of neutrality. That said, this is just (some might say greedy) capitalism. Let the market decide if this is worthy, not your (and my) useless senator/house rep. Congress is all about lobbies, not what the majority wants. Been that way for a long time... Really not at all surprised by this. Thanks for the posts & updates SUMware . In an oligarchy, the "market" doesn't get to make decisions because it does not exist. You get what is allowed by the owners, period. Don't like it, fuck you; "We're the Telephone Company", as Lily Tomlin liked to phrase it.
This is not "just capitalism"; it is monopolistic oligarchy, predatory capitalism in full bloom (SEE: The Predatory State). In fact, it is not really capitalism at all. No matter what all you horseshit "Free Market" capitalists out there think, "Free market" does not mean "free, except for special, predatory interests". True "free market" capitalism doesn't exist, but that absence doesn't justify the auctioning off of the public weal by our elected and appointed officials in exchange for a free golf excursion, or a blow-job in the cloakroom, proffered by some corporate entity tossing around 10K stacks of freshly minted C-notes.
Speaking of corruption, is there really any difference between what the Telcos, Cablecos and ISPs propose doing to the internet, and what they and similar moneyed interests of every description have already done to our government? Is that what accounts for your lack of surprise, your "can't-stop-it-anyway" resignation, if not tacit approval?
For those who haven't capitulated entirely to the ennui generated by the mad turd in the White House, his gang in the Congress and their collaborators, resistance is NOT futile; let your Congress-people know how you feel and guarantee them you won't forget, or forgive, their failures to stand up for your rights (SEE: Contacting Congress, or Congress/Merge, or the Committee/Sub-Committee!
Otherwise, our internet will become as corrupt and perverted as our so-called democracy. Leverage what's left of your vote! | |
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| reply to SUMware
Wrecking the Internet
From DistroWatch:
Wrecking the Internet: Turning Gold into Lead
by Robert Storey
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.
- Albert Einstein
"If we fail, the Internet will deteriorate to the point of near uselessness."
Not everyone realizes that the USA invented the Internet. Even fewer people realize that the USA is on the verge of wrecking it. This is not an exaggeration.
Those who do not live in the USA should not be smug. There is a famous old saying that when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches pneumonia. The USA has a history of exporting its bad laws. Most geeks are familiar with the notorious DMCA and software patents. The fact that this execrable legislation originated in America did not prevent its rottenness from spreading around the world.
To understand what is at stake, you should become familiar with the term net neutrality. The basic concept of net neutrality is that Internet content should be dished out in a non-discriminatory fashion. Thus, your ISP should not be preventing you from accessing DistroWatch, nor should your bandwidth be throttled when you try to use BitTorrent or Skype. In this sense, the network is neutral - it does not play favorites.
All this would change (for USA residents) if the US Congress passes the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006. This odious new law is the brainchild of telecom and cable TV companies. Chief ogres include Verizon, Comcast, BellSouth and AT&T. Their incentive for pushing this legal abomination is the opportunity to make a lot of money.
The COPE Act would do away with the requirement for net neutrality, thus turning America's Internet into a "private network." This would permit ISPs and telecom companies to dish out Internet access to the highest bidder. Under such a regime, AOL could, for example, block access to MSN, or Verizon could throttle your Skype bandwidth because it competes with their own voice-over-IP service. Even worse, a wealthy political party could pay ISPs to block access to a rival party's web sites and blogs. Emailing lists could also be throttled. It's not hard to imagine proprietary software companies paying to block access to DistroWatch, or prevent you from downloading the latest Ubuntu or Fedora release.
If the COPE Act is passed, the USA - which likes to boast of being a "bastion of freedom" - could ironically wind up with an Internet befitting a Third World dictatorship. However, the damage would not be limited to residents of the USA. The fact is that about 50% of the content on the Internet originates in America, even more if you're talking only about English-language content. Do a Google search on almost any topic - from "motorcycle repair" to "allergies" - and see how much of the hits are American-based web sites. The web sites themselves could be hosted on servers outside the USA, but server location is not the issue. Rather, deprived of their US-readership or US-based advertising revenue, many sites would have to fold. Would the Internet be as useful to you if Wikipedia or Google folded? For that matter, it's hard to see how DistroWatch (which is not US-based) could survive if we lost our American audience and advertisers.
There is a lot more I could write about on this topic, but there are others who have already done so (and do it better than me). Some excellent articles about this brewing fiasco appeared recently in The Nation, Raw Story and The Free Press.
Can anything to done to prevent this disaster (especially since the COPE Act seems to have the support of the Bush administration)? Fortunately, in this case I believe there is hope, though it's going to be a bitter fight. Although we are up against powerful, well-moneyed lobbyists from the telecom industry, we also have some heavyweight supporters, among them Amazon and Google. Opposition to the COPE Act is being coordinated by Save the Internet. If you are a US resident, you should visit their web site and sign their petition. Even more important, they also have a neat little form for sending a message to your representatives and senators - just type in your message, zip code and address, and it will get sent to the proper person (you needn't even know who your representatives are). All such messages should be short and to the point. Basically, what I said in my message was:
1. I oppose the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006 in its present form.
2. I support the efforts to amend the act by Representatives Markey, Boucher, Eshoo and Inslee, and Senators Olympia Snowe and Byron Dorgan.
3. I am in favor of Net Neutrality.
The telecom/cable industry is pulling out all stops to polish this turd. Their "coalition" has the Orwellian title Hands Off the Internet - their thoroughly misleading web site can be found here.
The telecoms have lots of cash, and are handing out campaign contributions (otherwise known as "bribes") by the bucketful in order to get the COPE Act passed. Geeks of the world - especially US-based geeks - need to put down their cups of espresso for a moment and get busy fighting this thing. If we fail, the Internet will deteriorate to the point of near uselessness and we might as well put our computers in storage. In that case, we'll have to all find new hobbies. Possible candidates include knitting and flower arranging. | |
TerryMiller
Premium
join:2003-10-23
| reply to SUMware
Re: Threat to Net Neutrality
This seems a fairly simple issue to me. Users pay for their bandwidth monthly. Users should then decide where they want to go and what they want to use it for.
It's not Google or Skype they're throttling, it's your access to those sites which would be throttled. Bandwidth that you paid for would be throttled because you chose to visit a site that didn't pay additional kickbacks to your chosen ISP.
What would the next step be, picking ISP's like Satellite, cable or telephone providers based on the sites that they allow you to visit, or visit at full speed. Maybe we could pay an extra $4.95 a month to get the "Search Engine Package" which allows unrestricted access to the three largest search engines. Soon to be followed by the "Shopping package" and the "Auction Package". Internet a la carte anyone? | |
spy1
Welcome to Amerika
Premium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC
| reply to SUMware
What's really ominous about this is that you'd be hard-put right now to even find a mention of this pending/proposed legislation anywhere on the major newsfeeds (CNN,FOX - I even went to news.yahoo.com and checked all the recent stories in "Politics", "Law" and "Technology" for every organization listed there) - nothing.
If you haven't noised this story about at every single site you frequent where you haven't seen it mentioned already, you should do so - quickly. If it's been mentioned but is sliding out-of-sight, then bump it by adding your own comments.
This is all going to be on us - so let's get busy! Pete | |
TerryMiller
Premium
join:2003-10-23
1 edit | reply to SUMware
Is this the offending text?
Snip from the bill
Title 2
(1) IN GENERAL.—This section shall be enforced by the Commission under titles IV and V. A violation of the Commission’s broadband policy statement or the principles incorporated therein shall be treated as a violation of this Act.
DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘Commission’s broadband policy statement’ means the policy statement adopted on August 5, 2005, and issued on September 23, 2005, In the Matters of Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, and other Matters (FCC 05–151; CC Docket No. 02–33; CC Docket No. 01–337; CC Docket Nos. 95–20, 98–10; GN Docket No. 00–185; CS Docket No. 02–52).
Title IV discusses competition neutrality and Title V discusses the prohibition of "bundled services".
Is the problem that the bill gives full power to the FCC to decide what's right and wrong for the internet?
Is the problem that network neutrality was not defined?
Does anyone have a link to the markups that were omitted?
Edit:
I found the Net neutrality proposal that was voted down.
The [Safeguards] section
SEC. 4. NET NEUTRALITY SAFEGUARDS. 21
(a) IN GENERAL.—Each broadband network provider has the duty to
(1) enable users to utilize their broadband service to access all lawful content, applications, and services available over broadband networks, including the Internet;
(2) not block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to utilize their broadband service to
(A) access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over broadband networks, including the Internet; or
(B) attach any device to the provider’s network and utilize such device in connection with broadband service, provided that any such device does not physically damage, or materially degrade other subscribers’ use of, the network;
(3) clearly and conspicuously disclose to users, in plain language, accurate information about the speed, nature, and limitations of their broadband service;
(4) offer, upon reasonable request to any person, a broadband service for use by such person to offer or access unaffiliated content, applications, and services;
(5) not discriminate in favor of itself in the allocation, use, or quality of broadband services or interconnection with other broadband networks;
(6) offer a service such that content, applications, or service providers can offer unaffiliated content, applications, or services in a manner that is at least equal to the speed and quality of service that the operator’s content, applications, or service is accessed and offered, and without interference or surcharges on the basis of such content, applications, or services;
(7) if the broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or quality of service; and
(8) not install network features, functions, or capabilities that thwart or frustrate compliance with the requirements or objectives of this section.
| |
SpannerITWks
Premium
join:2005-04-22 | reply to SUMware
Always makes you wonder why the Media don't pounce on issues like this ?
Spanner | |
Zaber
When all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
·Expedient
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·AT&T Midwest
| said by SpannerITWks :Always makes you wonder why the Media don't pounce on issues like this ? Spanner Very simple. Big media is too scared. Remember that for every action there is a reaction, if any broadcasting journalist tell this story with the slant we have here they would fear loosing broadcasting licenses or other retribution.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime | |
spy1
Welcome to Amerika
Premium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC
| reply to SUMware
*BTW, Markey's separate bill can be found here:
»markey.house.gov/docs/telecomm/M···2006.pdf
- it's called the "Network Neutrality Act of 2006" - so if you go the extra step of actually contacting your Rep (rather than just signing the two petitions that're out there_ make sure you let them know that you don't want COPE unless the NNA gets passed, too. The NNA doesn't have an H.R no., yet apparently. | |
foxsteve
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Campbell, CA
| reply to SUMware
I asked professional opinion from person to who I believe - here is the answer.
It's certainly something we're monitoring closely. The concern is that the ILECs and cable companies will get tired of competition, and will begin billing for reliable or fast use. If, for example, AT&T (formerly SBC) was doing video, maybe they'd want to give crappy performance to video.google.com or youtube.com. They say "we built the pipes, we have a right to monetize them", but that's bull. End-users are paying for bandwidth, period.
But, now that there's so little competition in broadband thanks to the cablecos and ILECs basicly excluding everyone else from their networks, end-users will probably have to take it. There will be no other options.
And the FCC is happy - multimodal competition sucks, but it's their concept.
| |
rotty97
join:2005-06-30
Australia | I'm sure hackers and crackers will be able to subvert this crap. (Oversease proxy, encrypted communications) | |
|
