24 replies to this topic

[MagusKyros]

I know this is politics, but I think this warrants a seperate thread.

A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:

The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.

In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.

Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.

Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.

Eric Schmidt

Source

[Kyuudaime]

Why fix what's not broken?
Seriously, leave the net alone.

[MagusKyros]

I personally think that either way, we'll have net neutraility.

Meaning hackers won't like it and they'll just break it.

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

[Hefster]

Ok, let's let out my first reaction at reading this...

Now that that is out of my system...

Honestly, even if the US Gov't would pass a law that would give ISP providers the rights to limit what their users see on the internet were to pass, it would quickly fail at the supreme court. In hindsight, without seeing an actual draft of said bill that is supposedly going to hit the US Senate floor, we can only take what Google says at face value.
For all we know, that bill/law might actually be directed at the ISP providers and search engine companies(Google) to limit their abilities to save and store their users browsing habits, search habits and more. It is possible that the end user, namely us won't even be affected by this.

However, until we get to see an actual copy of this bill/law, all speculations, anger, fear or whatever emotion goes through you is a waste.

Here in Germany, they tried to pass a law late last year where the BND, our German version of the CIA, wanted to gain more political powers and rights to electronically spy upon the people without a judge's prior consent. It utterly failed.

[MagusKyros]

You'd be surprised how strong greed is here in the US...or maybe not.

[Hefster]

You'd be surprised how strong greed is here in the US...or maybe not.

Hehe, I lived for 10years in the US so I have a good idea

[Smiter]

It's an idiotic idea, and one I hope will never pass.

What those companies are talking about is fragmenting the Internet. This goes completely against everything the Internet stands for; freedom, equality, creativity, and community spirit. In the past decade, the Internet has really exploded as a way for everyone to communicate, learn, have fun and see naughty things. Letting greedy companies dictate what you can/can't see would destroy that.

Paying for higher speed/bandwidth - that's fair enough. we already do that. But nobody should need to pay extra to see and use certain websites/services. Imagine if YouTube was limited to certain ISPs and you had to pay extra! Huge ISPs with lots of money would be able to squeeze out the smaller ISPs by ring-fencing "exclusive" content. This bill wouldn't just fragment the internet, it would also create unfair competition.

I hope the House hears the voice of the people loud and clear this time, tears up the Bill, and chucks the fragments right out of the window.

[Sakura Blossoms]

I hope the House hears the voice of the people loud and clear this time, tears up the Bill, and chucks the fragments right out of the window.

The thing is the House is now under Obama's administration, and with the way that Obama *loves* his technology, I would highly doubt that such a bill would ever be allowed to pass. Maybe under Bush's administration, but not Obama's.

[Nate River]

The thing is the House is now under Obama's administration, and with the way that Obama *loves* his technology, I would highly doubt that such a bill would ever be allowed to pass. Maybe under Bush's administration, but not Obama's.

Actually, it's the Democrats pushing this. I can't speak for Obama himself, but Congressional Democrats like John Kerry and people like Gore are some of the primary backers. Bush at no point ever pushed for network neutrality. I don't think Obama's love of technology says anything one way or the other about his position.

And the House is under Pelosi, not Obama. The difference matters as can be seen with Stimulus. It's become what it has , in part, because he let Pelosi and Reid write the thing. Previous Democrat Presidents like Carter and Clinton had to fight it out with their majorities as well.

And speaking of greed...Google has more than just a "moral" interest in this.

You'd be surprised how strong greed is here in the US...or maybe not.

As if it's somehow unique to this country... Come on.

[Derock]

The thing is the House is now under Obama's administration, and with the way that Obama *loves* his technology, I would highly doubt that such a bill would ever be allowed to pass. Maybe under Bush's administration, but not Obama's.

I agree with this. I think the Conservative/Radical politicians are the ones that are pushing it.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Actually, it's the Democrats pushing this. I can't speak for Obama himself, but Congressional Democrats like John Kerry and people like Gore are some of the primary government backers. Bush at no point ever pushed for network neutrality.

And the House is under Pelosi, not Obama. The difference matters as can be seen with Stimulus. It's become what it has , in part, because he let Pelosi and Reid write the thing. Previous Democrat Presidents like Carter and Clinton had to fight it out with their majorities as well.

And speaking of greed...Google has more than just a "moral" interest in this.



As if it's somehow unique to this country.....

I have always disliked Pelosi and Reid. Even during Bush's administration, the two of them just always rubbed me the wrong way. And the stimulus and now this net neutrality thing, certainly doesn't help that dislike.

[Nate River]

I agree with this. I think the Conservative/Radical politicians are the ones that are pushing it.

You'd be wrong, then. I already mentioned two noted supporters: John Kerry and Al Gore. They aren't conservative. I'm not 100% certain about Reid and Pelosi on this issue. I think they support it, but I'm not definite about that. Most conservatives I know oppose this.

Obama himself may or may not support it, but his party does.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Obama himself may or may not support it (I don't think his love of technology speaks one way or the other about his desire for this), but his party does.

Which is why the Democrats approval rating is almost as low as Bush's

[Nate River]

Which is why the Democrats approval rating is almost as low as Bush's

Actually, they're worse.

Well, to be specific, Congress's is and they run it at this time. Obama's isn't, but then he'd have to screw up on an almost historical level for that to happen two weeks into his Administration or have become President in the manner of someone like Rutherford B. Hayes or John Quincy Adams.

[MagusKyros]

And speaking of greed...Google has more than just a "moral" interest in this.

I'm aware that if this bill passes it would stomp on their growth, but Google does seem to lean more toward open source, so it's a bit of both.

As if it's somehow unique to this country... Come on.

Haha, touche...

Just reminded me of a history lesson.

[Derock]

Haha, touche...

Just reminded me of a history lesson.

And what a history lesson there is (and today it is still running).

[Nee-sama]

I know this is politics, but I think this warrants a seperate thread.




Source

This will probably never happen. However, I do fear we'll see those big companies charging people by how much they use the internet by measuring bandwidth usage per month and limiting our internet speed during "peak hours" in the near future.

[Hefster]

This will probably never happen. However, I do fear we'll see those big companies charging people by how much they use the internet by measuring bandwidth usage per month and limiting our internet speed during "peak hours" in the near future.

That is a distinct and sad possibility. However, the ISP companies would have to increase wide spread coverage first before they could make such a claim. The internet actually started out like that in the 90's. At least in Germany, they charged by the minutes/seconds you were online and by bandwidth. That however has moved to flatrates quickly and a move back towards charging for everything is difficult to imagine.

For example, the technology used for the internet is still in the stone age so to speak. The majority runs on copper cables and hardly on fibre optics. Let alone the improvements of wireless networks, I think we don't have to worry too much.

[Smiter]

This will probably never happen. However, I do fear we'll see those big companies charging people by how much they use the internet by measuring bandwidth usage per month and limiting our internet speed during "peak hours" in the near future.

That already happens in the UK! Most ISPs here have a Fair Usage Policy. For example, mine has a cap of 60GB/month for Monday-Fridays and something like 200GB/month for weekends; a total of 260GB. It's pretty generous (and one reason I chose them). However, most "cheap" ISPs will only allow something like 5-10GB per month and charge extra for going over the limit, making them totally unsuitable for regular/heavy internet use. It's always bloody irritating when they claim to be "unlimited" but hide their limit in the small print.

Some ISPs don't really enforce their Fair Usage Policy, however they usually do when demand begins to outstrip supply at some point.

Speed throttling does also happen on a few big ISPs as a means of trying to keep an acceptable download speed for all their users on peak times - heavy users sometimes get shoved onto a network separate from the light users. They will also scan for P2P/Bittorrent ports and throttle their speed - or block them - in order to save speed and bandwidth. Thankfully, mine doesn't.

Oh, I forgot to mention - there is also PAYG (Pay As You Go) internet where you pay per day/MB/GB instead of a monthly fee. That's mostly directed at mobile broadband users who may occasionally need to access the internet on the move, in the middle of nowhere, or in an emergency.

Really, it isn't that bad to have regulated bandwidth, you just have to make sure you do your research and read the small print in order to get the best deal that fits your needs.

[MagusKyros]

And what a history lesson there is (and today it is still running).

And it isn't a good thing.

Greed is what got many powerful leaders killed or in deep trouble. Just look at the sorry state of America, compared to what it could be. We're going to need some revolutionary changes if we're going to keep surviving. We can't live the way we do. History has repeatedly proven that it's always the unclean hearts of people/leaders that bring down a nation.