Net Neutrality

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

This is something we should all be concerned about.

Full Article

Congress is about to cast a historic vote on the future of the Internet. It will decide whether the Internet remains a free and open technology fostering innovation, economic growth and democratic communication, or instead becomes the property of cable and phone companies that can put toll booths at every on-ramp and exit on the information superhighway.

At the center of the debate is the most important public policy you've probably never heard of: "network neutrality." Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. The owners of the Internet's wires cannot discriminate. This is the simple but brilliant "end-to-end" design of the Internet that has made it such a powerful force for economic and social good: All of the intelligence and control is held by producers and users, not the networks that connect them.

 

[Dracil]

It is a big problem, but unfortunately, I doubt most people on this forum actually care, nor even really understand what it's about to start with.

 

[Cerberus~]

They should, it's something they all use.

 

[Harpuia]

Isn't that the one with plans to require you to use your REAL name to post on message boards from now on?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Isn't that the one with plans to require you to use your REAL name to post on message boards from now on?

No. I think I know what you're talking about, and that is already law. That law states that if I say anything negative about anyone on a message board, it is illegal unless I give my real name.

Net Neutrality, the way I understand it, is this:

Say you have two websites. Christianforums.com and satanicforums.com. The way it works now, is that each site come through your computer at the exact same speed... whatever your connection speed is. Your ISP has no control about what you view, or its speed. What the ISP companies want to do is be able to allow different sites to come in at different speeds. So, lets say your ISP wants to make a few extra dollars. If Satanicforums.com gives them money, they will come in at a faster speed than Christianforums.com, because CF hasn't given them any money. Let's say your ISP wants to back a Republican. They can make all Republican sites come in to your computer at high speeds, and all Democrat sites come into your computer at such slow speeds that it would take a day to load.

Did that make any sense?

 

[Harpuia]

No. I think I know what you're talking about, and that is already law. That law states that if I say anything negative about anyone on a message board, it is illegal unless I give my real name.

Net Neutrality, the way I understand it, is this:

Say you have two websites. Christianforums.com and satanicforums.com. The way it works now, is that each site come through your computer at the exact same speed... whatever your connection speed is. Your ISP has no control about what you view, or its speed. What the ISP companies want to do is be able to allow different sites to come in at different speeds. So, lets say your ISP wants to make a few extra dollars. If Satanicforums.com gives them money, they will come in at a faster speed than Christianforums.com, because CF hasn't given them any money. Let's say your ISP wants to back a Republican. They can make all Republican sites come in to your computer at high speeds, and all Democrat sites come into your computer at such slow speeds that it would take a day to load.

Did that make any sense?

Yeah. I should see if I can test that with two Winsockets on a VB. That's pretty ridiculous.

I know that the first people that will use it is the Christian ISPs that are around. They only block porn for now, but with this, those ISPs could have the ability to completely slow down ANY liberal/moderate sources and speed up any conservative sources, assuming the Christian ISP owner is a Religious Right member, of course.

 

[Rochir]

No. I think I know what you're talking about, and that is already law. That law states that if I say anything negative about anyone on a message board, it is illegal unless I give my real name.

What silly law is that? Do you have a source or link to that law?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

What silly law is that? Do you have a source or link to that law?

It was brought up a few months ago in the news forum, here. I don't even know what to begin to search for, though.

 

[Dracil]

This thing I guess: http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

This thing I guess: http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

Yep, that would be it.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

So, because of Republicans, Net Neutrality didn't pass. Is the internet going to change as badly as I think it is?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Click For An Explanation of What This Mean

My biggest fear... well my three biggest fear are 1.) no one will ever read my blog, because I sure don't have the money to pay the ISPs. 2.) Unless Erwin is going to pay the ISPs, everyone one in the US will not be able to access Christian Forums. 3.) Internet news now goes to the highest bidder. We can no long read everything and make our own decisions. We now only read what the richest people want us to read.

 

[Dracil]

Yeah, gg Republicans. You screwed us all.

 

[Harpuia]

Ah, the power of corporate America...

 

[Harpuia]

Click For An Explanation of What This Mean

My biggest fear... well my three biggest fear are 1.) no one will ever read my blog, because I sure don't have the money to pay the ISPs. 2.) Unless Erwin is going to pay the ISPs, everyone one in the US will not be able to access Christian Forums. 3.) Internet news now goes to the highest bidder. We can no long read everything and make our own decisions. We now only read what the richest people want us to read.

THAT could hurt conservatives more than liberals, actually.

You can say goodbye to WorldNetDaily, Weekly Standard, etc. If I remember correctly, I heard in a book about the liberal sites/organizations holding a money community pool to keep themselves going on the internet, but conservative sites run individually. So that could hurt them in the process.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

: \


very sad

 

[Dannager]

Click For An Explanation of What This Mean

My biggest fear... well my three biggest fear are 1.) no one will ever read my blog, because I sure don't have the money to pay the ISPs. 2.) Unless Erwin is going to pay the ISPs, everyone one in the US will not be able to access Christian Forums. 3.) Internet news now goes to the highest bidder. We can no long read everything and make our own decisions. We now only read what the richest people want us to read.

That's a little overstating it. While I don't like today's decision, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. First, cost will likely be low for this prioritization, and will also likely be dependant on traffic. Second, it will probably be handled by the hosting provider you set up your website with, so most personal users shouldn't be dealing with it. Third, access will not be cut off to sites without priority. Rather, the sites with priority will transfer data faster (the difference in speed remains to be seen). So, is this bad news? Yeah, probably. Is this the end of the world? Certainly not.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

That's a little overstating it. While I don't like today's decision, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. First, cost will likely be low for this prioritization, and will also likely be dependant on traffic. Second, it will probably be handled by the hosting provider you set up your website with, so most personal users shouldn't be dealing with it. Third, access will not be cut off to sites without priority. Rather, the sites with priority will transfer data faster (the difference in speed remains to be seen). So, is this bad news? Yeah, probably. Is this the end of the world? Certainly not.

That could be, but couldn't they drop the speed to whatever they want, basically censoring anything they choose?

The only silver lining I see is that, because I live in a major city, I have access to several ISPs. If only one of them didn't engage in this at all, they would get everyone's business, I assume. Google and Yahoo are angry, so they could advertise the heck out of the ISP that doesn't do this. Perhaps the market would correct this.

But my dad, who only lives like an hour away, only has access to one ISP and he isn't even really that far out of the city. So, I don't know what that means for people like that.

 

[Dannager]

That could be, but couldn't they drop the speed to whatever they want, basically censoring anything they choose?

They could, yes, but they won't. The outcry would be huge, not just from those visiting the sites but everyone else who opposed this bill in the first place. Not only that, but they have little reason to. They will lose customers to other ISPs because no one wants to have access to half an internet, and the benefit will not be dramatic because most people will simply use related sites (for news and such). Only if they shut down all websites with opposing views could they hope to be successful, but the PR for that would be utterly crippling.

The only silver lining I see is that, because I live in a major city, I have access to several ISPs. If only one of them didn't engage in this at all, they would get everyone's business, I assume. Google and Yahoo are angry, so they could advertise the heck out of the ISP that doesn't do this. Perhaps the market would correct this.

That's the hope. We've always done alright with a healthy amount of natural competition and indications are that we will continue to do so.

But my dad, who only lives like an hour away, only has access to one ISP and he isn't even really that far out of the city. So, I don't know what that means for people like that.

Hopefully nothing. Pricing should remain the same for consumers even if ISPs engage in selective bandwidth policies, and one would hope that no ISP would be stupid enough to outright cut off bandwidth flow to sites they don't want their customers visiting.

 

[Nightson]

What the ****? We need a new Congress and we need one now, welcome to America inc.