Net Neutrality at stake

[Flikerator]

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?

[Dan]

*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.

[Amailer]

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

[Tony]

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.

[Flikerator]

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

[Tony]

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"

[Dan]

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.

[Tony]

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.

[Dan]

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

[Bobrobyn]

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.

[codemage]

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?

[Flikerator]

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..

[md]

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).

[Flikerator]

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.

[Bobrobyn]

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.