Computer Science Canada Net Neutrality at stake |
| Author: | Flikerator [ Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Net Neutrality at stake |
http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=21890 I havnt seen any topics on Compsci about it (Which is somewhat distressing), but how does everyone feel about a Facist Internet? If you are on the internet and don't know about Net Neutrality SHAME on you. A bill passed REJECTING it. It basically states that no Bit is better then another Bit, so all Bits will be treated the same. Transfered at the same rate, ext. Its why all sites run at the same speeds (Well connecting to them, limited by their Internet connection, your internet connection, calculations being made on their server, ect). Now if you want a fast connection your gonna have to pay. This goes EXTREMELY further then just paying for things. ISP's now have the power to REDIRECT you. So if Google refuses to pay the ISP perhaps your getting redirected to "yahoo" (I know, scary!). Facism starts with Controlling information. The internet is the best form of FREE information. Interesting that it starts in the States. It won't last very long don't worry about it. Hacker Culture aside (You think they will be happy about it? Google "Hacker Culture" and find out why). If you say "We are charging you for the internet" independed ISP's will set up ALTERNATIVE internets. A second internet. It just takes someone to set it up. If that happens at all. This is disasterous for SMALL BUSINESS. They will crumble. How can they run a business when their website runs at 10% normal speed? Or their visaters are being redirected? Your views? |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
*Points at his sig witch has been there for a bit now* Any how Net Neutrality existsecs in a limted fourm in Canada becues of the ways our laws where orgianly writen and state that you can not be discrimtoray for who isps conect to. Tho it is not as strong as the legistaion in other contrys like Japan it still could be enougth to protect us. However if the U.S. ISPs start doing it, it still could mean bad things for us. If you whont to know more about this topic click on the link in my sig or just sreach youtube for videos on network neutarlity, there are tones of them. Basiclky with out net neutarlity ISP can desided what sites you can or can not go to by limiting bandwith to thess sites or simpley blocking them. They whould do this to make more money, for example blocking there comptiones pages or pages that say bad things about them (witch AOL has done in the past). Also they could make deals with like M$ and you whould only be alowed to use hotmail as e-mail, and msnm as instent messageing and MSN sreach for sreaching and sites like google, AIM, ICQ, google mail, ect whould be blocked or limited. |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah I seen this- but its more of a U.S Thign right? even so, its pretty sad- really thats just killing the internet 
http://www.savetheinternet.com/ was on dans MSN PM thats where I saw it and then I saw it on the google blog, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/debate-over-net-neutrality.html |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've heard something on this a while back. Something about prioritizing access, so that users who pay extra will have their requests jump the lines. Now one would think that if some ISP starts blocking off access to some resources, we'll just get a new ISP that wouldn't do that... but then the general public wouldn't know better. Usually they just don't know, period. |
|
| Author: | Flikerator [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Alternative internet seems rather nice, a few forums have this popping up. Some people are trying to organize a new internet. Its like the one know, except its not. Basically like having two internets. So if you goto www.compsci.ca on the alternative internet it wouldn't exist, unless someone makes another www.compsci.ca Something like that. It would require new ISP's (Or the same ISPs switching over to the alternative internet). In theory, it could be set up as a private internet and it wouldn't be allowed to be goverened (I dont see how it could be goverened now..but w/e). Only ISPs that sign a Net Neutrality agreement would be allowed to connect, for instance. Thus keeping money loving lobbyists (and such) out. If you have one Internet where you are blocked from MSN (for instance) and another where you can go on MSN like before, which would you go for? Now we have something. (Its an example, doesnt matter if you dont use msn  )
Thoughts on this? Note: Sorry for my bad explanation skills  |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
it will be subjected to the same laws as the current network. Unless you keep it to an exclusive membership, but then it's gonna have a set of its own issues. So same idea, different sets of ISPs. Ok.. we'd need a redundant set of backbone connections throughout the world. Then we'd need to recreate all of the content and services on our own again. What would all the users do? "Well I could stay with what I have, or adventure into the new thing that could be better, but right now I know that this one function I like is performed differently" Obviously just about every Windows user falls under the oblivion of mass market monopoly and will take the default settings as "good enough for me" and not bother with choice. "I could connect to Internet A where all my friends are using AOL, or I could connect to Internet B where everybody is a leet haxor and actually change their settings.. oh noes.. so complicated" |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What whould make that idea work is to make it comabtable with the existing net. For example make it newNet://www.compsci.ca goses to the new net and http://www.compsci.ca gose to curent one. So if you had a new isp you could get to both and an old one you only get one. Hostly i think it whould be admazing if we could set up an internet that was free (for the most part), totaly anynomses, totaly uncesored and not under the control of any one person or gorup. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
well right now the control comes from some companies owning backbone and servers. we could decentralize the servers, but how would we set up physical backbone connections without having anyone "own it"? So much wire is expensive to set up and maintain. I can only imagine distributed wireless, but that would work only for a network confined to a packed geographic location.. such as a city. There's no way we can wirelessly relay a signal from Waterloo to Thunder Bay, let alone to another province. Wired backbone is needed for heavy bandwidth flow ether way. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tony wrote: I can only imagine distributed wireless, but that would work only for a network confined to a packed geographic location.. such as a city. There's no way we can wirelessly relay a signal from Waterloo to Thunder Bay, let alone to another province. Wired backbone is needed for heavy bandwidth flow ether way. We could if the stations where in geo orbt of the erath |
|
| Author: | Bobrobyn [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Is congress trying to make 1984? Seriously, this is getting serious. This is the very first step to 1984, Americans should be fudging pissed. Everyone with a brain that lives in the states should be lobbying and writing congress, and so on. I don't understand how something like this could get passed, it's against the constitution. *sighs* Capitalism gets in the way again. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bobrobyn wrote: Is congress trying to make 1984? ....This is the very first step to 1984 ....it's against the constitution.
Congress took the first steps to 1984 (and decided that the constitution was only a rough guideline) back in 2001. You have been watching the news, right? |
|
| Author: | Flikerator [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://wilrichardson.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40&sid=56ef52a308469ae806ab5da66b7809b2 <--Just some discussion on another forum. Heres a good point about why its being passed (From the above link); Quote: On the other hand you have the older generation (legislators, CEOs, etc. . . basically, the people near the end of their careers, now just padding their retirement funds) have a big problem with how differently business is done in a new world they don't understand. I've seen it before, firsthand. . . they just *cannot* understand how a neutral network could be profitable, for example, they wonder how the GNU license could ever make anybody money, or how software vendors can exist in a market in which products can be copied.
Setting up an alternative web probably would require a lot of work. Im currently researching History of the Internet to see how it was first set up (I only know generals, im looking for specific things to estimate work required, cost, ect...). If done correctly it wouldn't be that hard to transfer your websites. I wouldn't think. Your not re-writing the code or anything. Im not well read enough to know, this is just my assumption. Aye Capitalism screws things up again. Its not entirely bad, but its extremist views are annoying. All extremist views are annoying, but Capitalism screws over a great many people for only a few, claiming to be "right" or correct because its more free. This isn't a political discussion so I'll stop. Anyways im off to do some more research.. |
|
| Author: | md [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yay for Canada; so far we've managed to actually stay sane and not turn ourselves into a dictatorship. Though the situation in the states is a good example of what happens when the people in chanrge get very good at manipulating the facts and scaring people into doing as told; and of course the power of bribery... big business can *buy* senators in the states (almost here too). |
|
| Author: | Flikerator [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Must....not...mock....my own....country.... Well they don't even make very valid points. They would actually appear more genius if they knew what they were talking about (They don't really understand what Net Neutrality is). Some see it as an obstacle, in the way of Capitalism and actual democracy. The most valid point (Which is purely capitalist) is "Umm like its their equipment, staff and such, they pay the electricity bill so like, they should have the right to choose who gets teh speed. Its sick that net netrality would limit this". That was a comment on a news Article about Net Neutrality. I copied it word for word x__x....Its kinda sad. Poor english skills aside, it does make a somewhat valid point. If they pay the bills, and the staff, and such, why shouldn't they get to descriminate? I'll let someone else answer. I know two reasons why, but if I don't tell you maybe you will state a point I don't know, or come up with one. |
|
| Author: | Bobrobyn [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: Bobrobyn wrote: Is congress trying to make 1984? ....This is the very first step to 1984 ....it's against the constitution.
Congress took the first steps to 1984 (and decided that the constitution was only a rough guideline) back in 2001. You have been watching the news, right? LOL, that's good. Well, further the country to achieving a state of 1984 (or totaltarianism). Seriously, if they can control stuff for financial reasons, I can see the government getting involved and emplying censorship. Hello China. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That the United States and China should begin to resemble each other increasingly is unsurprising. Any two countries that do so much business together will seek to minimize barriers to that trade. Business interests in both nations see the idea of nation-states as quaint, and only marginally useful as political tools. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: Any two countries that do so much business together will seek to minimize barriers to that trade. This is a highly one sided view, since it is quite obvious China does not think this way.  It is the US that is trying to work out with China, not quite the other way around. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not quite. China has quite a bit invested in the U.S. Reducing barriers means it's easier for them to spend the interest they're earning. For instance, why did China buy Boeing 747s instead of Airbus jets? Well, because they couldn't pay for the Airbus planes with dollars.  |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It is in America's best interest to help ease China into the post-modern, post-industrialized, information age. It is only a matter of time before China and India eclipse the world economy. US economists have finally realized that the eastern economic machine is unstoppable (whether through sanctions, espionage, or cold war) - so they're capitalizing on it by trying to own as much of it as possible while the getting is good. If you're looking for a slightly volatile but immensely profitable country to invest in... |
|
| Author: | - IzAk - [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i dont know about that.... like i see your point but im still in debate about wether or not the u.s is trying to buy that much into china |
|
| Author: | - IzAk - [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
personally i think they'er just trying to make it look as if their intrested to ward of other countrys from moving into the u.s's market, i stil think they're goin all out to be better then china instead of invest in them. |
|
| Author: | Flikerator [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
China has more interest in Russia and India then the US or Canada. With good reason. They are close together, and combined would have a greater military strength. (The Alliance proposed by Russia to China and India was to appose NATO). China and India stated they were not ready yet to appose NATO. I have concern over the "yet" part. Google News Search "India China Russia Alliance". There wasn't a lot on it when I was looking for some, but that was a week ago. wtd makes an excellant point about barriers. It is a lot easier to trade with less barriers. Remember though, that China is still a communist country. They would rather lower the US boundries then their own. I have no idea whether either country is lowering each others boundries or not. Quote: LOL, that's good. Well, further the country to achieving a state of 1984 (or totaltarianism). Seriously, if they can control stuff for financial reasons, I can see the government getting involved and emplying censorship. Hello China.
Big Business has always controlled the government. Well not always, but generally the people with power (money in this case) make the decisions. You have the choice between two things. A bag of cash, or doing what a select people think is the right thing. Read some reviews for news articles. If you get someone who stands to make no money, they don't understand Net Neutrality, and think us (People who know Net Neutrality is right) are nothing but Zealots. We believe we know the right answer, and won't listen to reason. In their eyes we are extremists. |
|
| Author: | - IzAk - [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
hmm.... |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Flikerator wrote: Remember though, that China is still a communist country.
No, it isn't. They talk up the communist stuff, but China is a capitalist oligarchy. Basically, the same as the United States. |
|
| Author: | Flikerator [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: Flikerator wrote: Remember though, that China is still a communist country.
No, it isn't. They talk up the communist stuff, but China is a capitalist oligarchy. Basically, the same as the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China China is primarily, and is classified as, Communist. Even Russia in the 1920's had Capitilist aspects (collectivisation for example). Capitalism or Communism cannot exist in a pure form. There will always be some aspect of the other. China doesn't allow their people to search for "Freedom" in google. Doesn't sound very Capitalist. I will agree with you that China is an Oligarchy though. This thread is about Net Neutrality though, so please not a lot of discussion of unrelated topics   |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Agreed. Briefly then - Canada's dissolution of the 30% foreign investment cap (ie - your financial assets in most categories used to have to be 70% canadian up until last year) is because of the desire of the "West" to snap up foreign industry. Whoever controls the world economy controls the flow of information. Compare net freedom in China (autocracy) vs. Sweden (liberal democracy). Contrast with US (oligarchy) attempting to impose rule on the rest of the world. There's my tie-in. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Flikerator wrote: wtd wrote: Flikerator wrote: Remember though, that China is still a communist country.
No, it isn't. They talk up the communist stuff, but China is a capitalist oligarchy. Basically, the same as the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China China is primarily, and is classified as, Communist. Even Russia in the 1920's had Capitilist aspects (collectivisation for example). Capitalism or Communism cannot exist in a pure form. There will always be some aspect of the other. China doesn't allow their people to search for "Freedom" in google. Doesn't sound very Capitalist. I will agree with you that China is an Oligarchy though. You're confusing economic systems with political systems. This is understandable, though, as the ignorant have specifically encouraged such confusion for half a century or more. Communism and capitalism are economic systems. Economically, China is primarily capitalist these days. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The U.S. does not brag about communism. The U.S. is however a capitalist oligarchy. |
|
| Author: | Flikerator [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I created this topic to discuss Net Neutrality, so people can freely talk about such topics without mega-corporations redirecting them, or making forums "lag". That way you can continue to show 16 year olds they aren't as smart as you
Does anyone know when it passes through the final level of US whatever-its-called? Call me ignorant, but I don't really care what its called. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Net neutrality is all about politics (and economics). How can one hope to understand the issue, without a proper understanding of the economic and political setting in which it is taking place? And it's not about being smarter. It's about having had more time to gather information. That you've spet less time on this ball of dirt isn't your fault, but it also isn't an excuse to remain ignorant. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Flikerator wrote: Does anyone know when it passes through the final level of US whatever-its-called?
There is a series of legislation that is in the bill (rough draft) stage and a bunch of acts (real laws) that somewhat cover the concept. For a brief outline, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Legal_history |
|
| Author: | - IzAk - [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ehh. im only 16 and i understand the vast majority of what's goin on in this discussion. |
|