Save The Internet By July 16th !!!

[anabolicrhino]

MIENFOKS: SAVE THE INTERNET BY JULY 16TH ! ! !

Does your opinion really matter ? who knows, but check out the geek dressed like the guy from TRON !

 

[Tiberius]

MIENFOKS: SAVE THE INTERNET BY JULY 16TH ! ! !

Does your opinion really matter ? who knows, but check out the geek dressed like the guy from TRON !

This is about Net Neutrality. What is currently happening right now is ISPs are beginning to sniff the packets you send and receive and throttle those packets if they don't like what they "see." Some ISPs stop them outright under certain conditions. Currently they are able to because they "claim" it is part of combatting piracy. They do things like prevent the transfer of encrypted traffic or throttle it. Many throttle or prevent the transfer of P2P traffic.

WHat it is heading towards and what the PUBLISHED plans are as follows:

In order for businesses to get the full transfer rate they paid for to customers of an ISP they must pay the ISP a fee. How much they pay will determine how much the people requesting the information will receive. On the other side, customers will have to pay tiered service that won't increase bandwidth but access to information. So customers that pay the least will ONLY be able to access sites that have paid the highest premium. On the next level they will have access to sites that have paid a lower premium but at a throttled slow speed.

The result is you pay more money for far less service. ISPs will make so much more money under this model than under a standard model that no net neutral ISP would ever be capable of competing; it would make absolutely no business sense to not have this model because it:

1) creates an entirely new source of income.
2) allows them to advertise higher speeds that will not actually be given
3) allows them to conserve bandwidth thereby reducing cost. Currently they have sold more bandwidth than they have; and have relied on people not transferring large file or being connected and transferring 24/7.


Additionally there are tremendous privacy concerns. They are actively sniffing packets of information you send to determine what is in them. There is currently no law against this. It is however the very same thing as if the phone company decided to listen to everyone's phone calls and if someone started talking about something they didn't like they'd disconnect them.

Additionally on the sending side, this opens the door very wide for government to influence ISPs to censor various websites by charging them more than anyone else in order to receive "premium priority" or even to be sent at all to anyone except those that are paying the highest personal connection fees.



So if you like the internet at all, support net neutrality.

 

[bigSMokey]

There is a very clear greed element involved here. Remember SBC CEO Ed Whitacre's brilliant remarks on the issue:

"Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?"

Yes, his "pipes"....I guess hte internets in general belong to specific individuals and groups, and not the people as a whole.

Whitacre has since revised his position to a softer, more open-minded tone. His remarks did not play well in the media.


However, there is another element in play here. It should be of much greater concern than old-fashioned big-corporate greed. The issue being that there is a very strong motive to control what is seen on the internets.

Think of all the crap and propaganda that comes out of much of television broadcasting. Compare that with the wide variety of information found on the internet. It is the voice of the people. There's a lot of garbage on the internet as well, but at least it ensures that the voice the masses hear is not just that of a small group of people.

How many would know the truth about 9/11 were it not for the internet? A great deal of otherwise intelligent individuals have chosen to bury their heads in the sand regarding the lie, but at least they had the choice to either view the information or turn it off.

The powers that be would love nothing more than to go back to the old way of keeping nearly everybody in the dark on the real issues, as opposed to the approximately 50/50 scenario we see now.

 

[snakebyte05]

There is a very clear greed element involved here. Remember SBC CEO Ed Whitacre's brilliant remarks on the issue:

"Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?"

Yes, his "pipes"....I guess hte internets in general belong to specific individuals and groups, and not the people as a whole.

Whitacre has since revised his position to a softer, more open-minded tone. His remarks did not play well in the media.


However, there is another element in play here. It should be of much greater concern than old-fashioned big-corporate greed. The issue being that there is a very strong motive to control what is seen on the internets.

Think of all the crap and propaganda that comes out of much of television broadcasting. Compare that with the wide variety of information found on the internet. It is the voice of the people. There's a lot of garbage on the internet as well, but at least it ensures that the voice the masses hear is not just that of a small group of people.

How many would know the truth about 9/11 were it not for the internet? A great deal of otherwise intelligent individuals have chosen to bury their heads in the sand regarding the lie, but at least they had the choice to either view the information or turn it off.

The powers that be would love nothing more than to go back to the old way of keeping nearly everybody in the dark on the real issues, as opposed to the approximately 50/50 scenario we see now.

I hope to god you aren't talking about the 9/11 conspiracy video where it was all the gov. doing it. Such a horribly done video full of inaccuracies. I agree that that nut job should have all the right in the world to post his views on the internet regardless of my opinion. This is what I liked about the internet. If they start controlling it that would be something that would really piss me off.

 

[Tiberius]

I hope to god you aren't talking about the 9/11 conspiracy video where it was all the gov. doing it. Such a horribly done video full of inaccuracies. I agree that that nut job should have all the right in the world to post his views on the internet regardless of my opinion. This is what I liked about the internet. If they start controlling it that would be something that would really piss me off.

If net neutrality is defeated, they most certainly will be capable of controlling what is or isn't seen on the internet. Very much like China in fact only instead of the government being in direct control, it will be the ISPs who control what is or isn't seen.


As for the whole "they're using it for free" that's bull****. People PAY for internet access. They PAY to have websites and web hosting. None of it is free. When you sign up with an ISP you pay for a plan that is supposed to give you a certain max speed of data transfer. You do not sign up for data from only specific sites. You sign up for INTERNET access and thus everything accessible via an internet connection. Any censoring is and should only ever be done by the consumer. ISPs however want to do their own censoring.

 

[snakebyte05]

If net neutrality is defeated, they most certainly will be capable of controlling what is or isn't seen on the internet. Very much like China in fact only instead of the government being in direct control, it will be the ISPs who control what is or isn't seen.


As for the whole "they're using it for free" that's bull****. People PAY for internet access. They PAY to have websites and web hosting. None of it is free. When you sign up with an ISP you pay for a plan that is supposed to give you a certain max speed of data transfer. You do not sign up for data from only specific sites. You sign up for INTERNET access and thus everything accessible via an internet connection. Any censoring is and should only ever be done by the consumer. ISPs however want to do their own censoring.

Not sure if you think I am disagreeing with you because I am not. I completely agree that the internet should not be censored. I see it as a form of free speech that should not be messed with.

 

[Tiberius]

Not sure if you think I am disagreeing with you because I am not. I completely agree that the internet should not be censored. I see it as a form of free speech that should not be messed with.

Oh I understood you were agreeing. I was just pointing out that what you fear is very much true; that if net neutrality is not instituted in full or worse yet if it is completely violated then there most definitely will be full censorship of the internet.

 

[Rufio]

This is about Net Neutrality. What is currently happening right now is ISPs are beginning to sniff the packets you send and receive and throttle those packets if they don't like what they "see." Some ISPs stop them outright under certain conditions. Currently they are able to because they "claim" it is part of combatting piracy. They do things like prevent the transfer of encrypted traffic or throttle it. Many throttle or prevent the transfer of P2P traffic.

WHat it is heading towards and what the PUBLISHED plans are as follows:

In order for businesses to get the full transfer rate they paid for to customers of an ISP they must pay the ISP a fee. How much they pay will determine how much the people requesting the information will receive. On the other side, customers will have to pay tiered service that won't increase bandwidth but access to information. So customers that pay the least will ONLY be able to access sites that have paid the highest premium. On the next level they will have access to sites that have paid a lower premium but at a throttled slow speed.

The result is you pay more money for far less service. ISPs will make so much more money under this model than under a standard model that no net neutral ISP would ever be capable of competing; it would make absolutely no business sense to not have this model because it:

1) creates an entirely new source of income.
2) allows them to advertise higher speeds that will not actually be given
3) allows them to conserve bandwidth thereby reducing cost. Currently they have sold more bandwidth than they have; and have relied on people not transferring large file or being connected and transferring 24/7.


Additionally there are tremendous privacy concerns. They are actively sniffing packets of information you send to determine what is in them. There is currently no law against this. It is however the very same thing as if the phone company decided to listen to everyone's phone calls and if someone started talking about something they didn't like they'd disconnect them.

Additionally on the sending side, this opens the door very wide for government to influence ISPs to censor various websites by charging them more than anyone else in order to receive "premium priority" or even to be sent at all to anyone except those that are paying the highest personal connection fees.



So if you like the internet at all, support net neutrality.

100% agreed.