Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

[Moaku Hyena]

Because they will be voting on it next week. I know Mhurron and her high intelligence has shot me down last time I brought up the Save the Internet business, but turns out I was very much right. After days and weeks of debating and research, I have had the nerve to post this. PiNG, the owner of this fine community, I think this would interest you in particular because this has the potential of really tearing this site down (You're still awesome by the way, PiNG!).

This was taken from my LJ blog.

"...Some of you do not know how big of a deal this will be. Some of you shrug it off. Well, it may not seem like much, but it is a BIG BIG deal. In fact, so big that it will change the US from a system of Democracy into a system of Fascism.

Okay, you may be laughing at me, but do read on. The Senate will be voting on the COPE Act, which would give big Telco companies complete control over what you can see and do online, and will literally hand the Internet over to them. That is where the problem lies. As the Internet is the absolute greatest source of information in all humankind--yes, it made me learn about the way the REAL world works-- stripping it from the hands of the poor and passing it over to the rich is completely unacceptable.

When the COPE Act is passed, there will be an Internet "Tax", or more correctly, and Internet Trust (Due to it being from Corporations), that can vary from each consumer. What is a Trust? A Trust is an extra fee that is tacked onto a good or service for no other reason than to fill a company's wallet. In fact, there was a time when the US was full of Trusts. There were Oil Trusts, Food Trusts, almost a Trust on everything imaginable.

Of course, since this is the Information Superhighway, this would be similiar to the Railroad Trust. If you recall in your History course, the Railroad Commission (a corporation, mind you) charged discriminatory rates on transportation of goods. If Company A was liked by Company B, Company A got the discount while Company B got charged a normal rate, if not more. I'd feel sorry for Company B if it were to be hated by the Railroad commission...

Now, replace "Railroad" with "Telco Company" and "Company" with "Website Owner". Now, you would be pissed if your webserver that you created was in control of a Telco Company. And yet, the big ol' rich elephants in Congress would not care. If the Telco did not like the contents of your site, then all they'd have to do is jack up the fees that you pay...

Of course, the elephants are not the only ones supporting this. In fact, Verizon alone has over 200 lobbyists (Yes, 200 fuckig f&@!king lobbyists!!!!) on this. Yes, that's a lot of money. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ctfGSdlSPw Democracy Now! Video). Shows you how much our voice counts compared to money! AT&T has about every person they can on their side. Yikes, we seriously have a lobbying problem if they can flash their bills in the face to stress Congress...

Anyhow, I've taken some more possible exploits from WNY Network's site ( http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?op...k=view&id=1934 )...

"How does this threat to Internet freedom 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."

So basically, the Internet will be handed to the rich. You know how much I hate the rich and stuck up? I've dealt with them because I worked for them, and I do believe that they don't deserve to have complete control over the internet and what the common user sees.

So imagine your favorite website in that category. I'll add more to this when I wake up."

Videos are located here:

AT&T CEO acting like a dumbnut and saying the Internet is a series of Tubes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvc4kjJNkm8

Senator Ted Stevens, regulator of e-commerce, speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

Democracy Now! Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ctfGSdlSPw

[Jarre]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

I have one problem with this.

You are talking about the US, am i right, The USA does not own the internet, the internet is global. The trillions of pages that make up the internet are not all owned by the USA, so international law would mean that thy will not be able to control say a website in the Uk, stored on Uk servers etc.

It just prooves to me how corrupt your governemnt is (i can say that, freedom of speach etc etc. (while it lasts!))

Reading through this, its another "stealth tax" as we call it in the uk, where does teh money go and if you tell me some of that is not goign to the government, then your wrong, especially as you say the "senete" (however its spelt) is involved in a vote. the toher thing is as I have said the internet is global, the US doesn't rule the world so it sounds like this will only effect the US. If they try and take over the rest they will be in breach of the rest of the worlds financila laws.

In teh Uk this would not be allowed as it would be classed as a "monopoly" and the Uk has strict rule son this enforced by an independant authority "the monopolies commission".

I'm affraid its another outrageous act of power nabbing from your government, Bush wanted to sensor the internet and make it more "Christian" (yes his first year of office, that was shot down faster than he could fall off a segway scooter ) this sounds like similar but in discuise.

I hope the sennet has some sense and is not 100% corrupt though knowing many members will be linked with companies that would et a "slice" of the money.

This would not happen in teh Uk, the media has more free reign than yours does and they would sniff it out and absolutly slaughter this idea.

(Rant over )

I'll leave you with a simple question..

who owns teh internet?

The short answer is very simple. Either nobody owns the Internet, or everybody owns the Internet. so who controls it, well noone or everyone. so how can one company claim to own something that is owned by everyone?

Indeed this is the modern "what is the meaning of life" i.e. a complete Head F!

[Feba]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Step 1 : Get pissed
Step 2 : Mass Migration of Nerds
Step 3 : ???
Step 4 : Write novel about Step 3
Step 5 : Profit!

[Zamphire]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

I have one problem with this.

You are talking about the US, am i right, The USA does not own the internet, the internet is global. The trillions of pages that make up the internet are not all owned by the USA, so international law would mean that thy will not be able to control say a website in the Uk, stored on Uk servers etc.

You're right, the USA does not own the internet. What they do own, the the way every American gets access to the internet. That's what the problem is, they're going to make some stuff faster (the websites that pay them off) while making the competitors speed slower. So it's more convient to us to visit the sites that pay them then the ones that dont. Giving the internet to the rich.

It wouldn't effect people outside the US, but the millions here would be in hell.

[kuu]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Many countries already do this.

China for instance has fast inter-country ping times, but slow as molasses international ping.

The key here, is your ISP. NOT the internet.

The internet will always go at the speed of the lowest common denominator. All your ISP does is make different lowest common denominators for your pipline.

Verizon has already done something like this with their "Gamer's experiance" thingy, to give preference to gaming servers, or better pings(which is most likely at the expense of someone else's pings).

The issue here is, if allowed an not curbed, it opens up a big can of worms, like many articles on net neutrality. I'm not going to rehash those discussions.

It's basically, "You're screwing me up on purpose aren't you?" "No, it's in the customer's interest, heheheh"

It's deadly to people like earthlink, if verizon suddenly slows them down because they want people to get a "better" experiance for their services.

[Jarre]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Brushes sweat off forhead phew....

well i use a 100% british ISP so unlike some brits on AOL I shouldn't be affected. My points are still valid though

[Lunaryn]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Thom Hartmann actually drew a rather good comparison to SMS to help explain the probable impact, I'll see if I can dig up a transcript or clip later.

[kuu]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Brushes sweat off forhead phew....

well i use a 100% british ISP so unlike some brits on AOL I shouldn't be affected. My points are still valid though

Depends how badly the can of worms is opened.

Ala butterfly effect, the more trench wars ISPs, CLECs, and Hosting, start throwing around, the more and more will suffer.

It's like how a trade embargo between Japan and China will somehow effect your ipod.

[ValisOfValefor]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Or lets put this another way US does not own the Internet but is The telecommunications hub for the world. The ICANN(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is located in the united states, and most of the company's that are lobbying for this also have a large influence over sea's. Also the FCC is populated right wing business types that could really give a hoot about consumers or free speech, but they sure seem to care about hooters.

$%@# I didnt clear my cookies.................... Dammit was loged into my brothers account.

[kuu]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Or lets put this another way US does not own the Internet but is The telecommunications hub for the world. The ICANN(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is located in the united states, and most of the company's that are lobbying for this also have a large influence over sea's. Also the FCC is populated right wing business types that could really give a hoot about consumers or free speech, but they sure seem to care about hooters.

$%@# I didnt clear my cookies.................... Dammit was loged into my brothers account.

Sort of false sort of true.

ICANN is a private organization that has its headquarters in US. ICANN is massively big with input of top businesses from around the world.

Depends on which side of the grass roots you're looking at, ICANN is the most truely useful body to govern the internet, or the most evil power.

Next to no government can really steamroll into ICANN because ICANN *has* it's own part of said government(the business inside those goverment).

Even Bush who tried to push some things onto ICANN, had to mellow out when he realizes who's in ICANN.

The one's making the biggest fuzz about ICANN's hold on root servers are obvious countries which like to screw said business in favor of their own goals. (Government that like to control information).

[Gentoo]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Thanks for bringing this up again Moaku ... And I dig your railroad analogy -- it's spot on.

Brushes sweat off forhead phew....
well i use a 100% british ISP so unlike some brits on AOL I shouldn't be affected. My points are still valid though

As long as you only visit nodes that are located inside Britan.

Here's a possible scenerio:

While your ISP may provide very fast access, the minute the information you're requesting passes through ... say ... a pipe owned by Verizon, they're going to look at the destination (which is an IP owned by your ISP) and see if your ISP has paid to have high-speed access (that is, they've paid extra money to have the same access they do today)
If so, your information gets routed through the big fast pipe and everything clicks along.
If not, your shunted to the 56Kb pipe, and the content for FFXIOnline is dribbled at you like the glory days of dial-up.

There's a bazillion (plus or minus a bunch) other permutations this could take.

I really don't like the idea of my government legislating anything on the internet. In this case, having them write some laws enforcing net neutrality really is lesser evil.

[DakAttack]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Imagine trying to camp NMs then? That second of immunity to being claimed will mean nothing when players actually have a genuine advantage of speed.

[Moaku Hyena]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Imagine trying to camp NMs then? That second of immunity to being claimed will mean nothing when players actually have a genuine advantage of speed.

Oh god, exactly.
And then if speed is an advantage and the rich f^#!@ can pat for the ticket into the fast lane...
Damn, the Gilsellers will be having a holiday. Yet one more reason among many reasons why I think Net Neutrality should be upheld!

[Jarre]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

Depends how badly the can of worms is opened.

Ala butterfly effect, the more trench wars ISPs, CLECs, and Hosting, start throwing around, the more and more will suffer.

It's like how a trade embargo between Japan and China will somehow effect your ipod.

We are lucky in my country to have a "monopolies commission" to scupper this currupt behavior.

Here's a possible scenerio:

While your ISP may provide very fast access, the minute the information you're requesting passes through ... say ... a pipe owned by Verizon, they're going to look at the destination (which is an IP owned by your ISP) and see if your ISP has paid to have high-speed access (that is, they've paid extra money to have the same access they do today)
If so, your information gets routed through the big fast pipe and everything clicks along.
If not, your shunted to the 56Kb pipe, and the content for FFXIOnline is dribbled at you like the glory days of dial-up.

What if I use proxies?

[Gentoo]

Re: Okay, why am I bringing up Net Neutrality again?

What if I use proxies?

It still follows the same logic.

Does the path from your computer to the proxy cross a non-neutral network?

If it doesn't, so far, so good.
If it does, and your ISP, or the proxies ISP isn't on the list of preferred destinations, then off to slowsville for you. End of story.

Next in line, does the path from the proxy to the destination cross a non-neutral network?

If it doesn't, and the connection between your computer and the proxy didn't cross a non-neutral network then your golden.

If it does, the proxies ISP or the destinations ISP isn't on the list of preferred destinations, then off to slowsville for you
Or maybe the speed will continue to be high, but instead of being getting to www.ffxionline.com as your browser requested, you're instead doubled-proxied to the new discussion area at http://forums.RMT-FTW.com/ -- because a RMT organization has purchased perferred traffic.