Save the Internet

basa · 26-05-2006, 12:12

Where you aware US Congress is making decisions that could ultimately decide the freedom of the Internet ?

This guy just wants you to pay for it !

and these think it will slow down development ??

Further food for thought here regarding Internet Privacy

Damien · 26-05-2006, 20:48

The arguement about a two-tier internet has been going for a while. That there will be one type of service that has stuff such as email and web browsing and another, more expensive service for people who want to perform more demanding tasks.

I do not like this personally but something has to be done. It is also not about the 'freedom of the internet' it is about how to manage the internet in the current age where bandwidth is become a problem. If anything making all networks equal may mean the ISPs close down bittorrent and other applications to avoid the bandwidth being hogged resulting in less freedom

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

Also government passing laws on how the net should work is not exactly 'freedom' either

**Russ B** · 26-05-2006, 20:57

If ever there was an aurgument to reduce the amount of control America has over the web it is this.

AndrewJ · 26-05-2006, 21:00

I cannot see this being done it would require major reworking of the entire internet and only cause America more global unrest, they have ****ed enough up already, and shown they cannot organise a **** up in a brewery.

Pehaps they should stick to regulating doughnuts, about all they can do in Congress.

Damien · 26-05-2006, 21:07

Ok, The government are the ones who are preventing the two tier internet at the moment. They passed the Network Neutrality bill in the house which say providers may provide equal level of access to all type of content (no limiting bt or video).

Halcyon · 26-05-2006, 21:09

Never going to happen. Too many people would make a fuss over it all.
It will always be free, maybe more sites will have pay for content, but I'd say it will largely remain free.

Damien · 26-05-2006, 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Never going to happen. Too many people would make a fuss over it all.
It will always be free, maybe more sites will have pay for content, but I'd say it will largely remain free.

This is the other side of the two-tier net that cannot be protected against. Many sites may decide to have paid for content which may suck

AndrewJ · 26-05-2006, 21:28

I do not mind paying for extra content on a website if I enjoy the place enough, but I object to paying more for the net then my price of my broadband which is high enough I believe.

TheBlueRaja · 26-05-2006, 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Never going to happen. Too many people would make a fuss over it all.
It will always be free, maybe more sites will have pay for content, but I'd say it will largely remain free.

Nope, what will happen is that the internet as we know it will be overlayed by a paid net that will work better for those that choose to pay.

The normal everyday internet will continue as is but be throttled until extinct to provide to the users of the higher paid service.

As long as there are people who are prepared to spend more cash than you to recieve a percieved better service, there will be people who will be more than happy to take their cash.

Its akin to Sky HD, Standard Def channels are throttled in terms of bit rate to accomodate HD content and i actually saw a guy over on AVforums today, in all seriousness, say that he would be prepared to pay Ã‚Â£1000 for a better Sky HD box. With idiots like that around its no wonder the worlds fecked up.

Anonymouse · 26-05-2006, 22:57

Regulation? Or control? Does Congress understand the difference?

The Internet's greatest strength has always been that no-one controls it and no-one owns it. What AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner etc. really want is to control the Internet in such a way as to maximise their profits. If that could be done in a way that wouldn't affect the vast majority of Internet users who have no interest whatsoever in increasing said companies' profits, then okay. But as far as I can see, that's not what they're asking for. What they're lobbying for will affect every Internet user with or without their say-so, and that's just not on.

Besides, granting them such control is the first step towards giving them the power to decide what users will and will not access on the Internet...in other words, censorship. We may end up with big business becoming government. Anyone here remember Dennis Potter's last work, "Cold Lazarus"? Do we really want it to happen?

To quote from Richard Morgan's superb Broken Angels:

In any agenda, political or otherwise, there is a cost to be borne. Always ask what it is, and who will be paying. If you don't, then the agenda-makers will pick up the perfume of your silence like swamp panthers on the scent of blood, and the next thing you know, the person expected to bear the cost will be you.
And you may not have what it takes to pay.

- Quellcrist Falconer
Things I Should Have Learnt By Now
Vol II

What's the true agenda here? What is the real cost? Who's paying it?

And more to the point, can we afford it...?

Damien · 27-05-2006, 00:29

Ok deep. This is what I meant before when I said this is not about censorship nor government enforced control.

This was about the internet providers making more money in the guise of a serious issue that is bandwidth. But the government in America are passing bills preventing providers from doing this. This is not 1984 and it is not a case a civil rights etc etc.

No one is looking to control the content of the net, just control the bandwidth usage of the protocols that are used to access this content. It would mean that people would have to pay more to access more features. THAT is the question here. This is not about control, it is about giving all users of the internet equal access to the services that is what the Internet is about.

That is what the bill the house passed today has helped, it said that the ISPs and not allowed to provide different levels of access.

Anonymouse · 28-05-2006, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Ok deep. This is what I meant before when I said this is not about censorship nor government enforced control.

I think you've missed the point of the article. And I didn't say anything about the government controlling or censoring the Internet - although there are people in Congress who would like to do just that. Control by corporations would be just as bad if not worse. Watch "Rollerball" - the original version - for one vision of a corporate world. Better yet, read Richard Morgan's "Market Forces" for a really depressing - but realistic - view of what happens when big business starts making up its own laws. You'll never see road rage in quite the same light again. Believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

No one is looking to control the content of the net, just control the bandwidth usage of the protocols that are used to access this content. It would mean that people would have to pay more to access more features. THAT is the question here. This is not about control, it is about giving all users of the internet equal access to the services that is what the Internet is about.

Who says they're not looking to control content? Again, you've missed the point as to why people are supporting Net Neutrality. Alright, maybe they're not looking to control content now, but the Bill will give them the ability to do just that. And anyone who doesn't believe that as soon as they can do it, they will, is being naive.

And when even Microsoft of all companies is supporting Net Neutrality, it should be obvious there is something to argue about.