Internet Legislation.

All the news that's new and approved. We want your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Moderator: EG Members

Post Reply
Damien
Dirty Sennin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: Worcester, Massachusetts.
Contact:

Internet Legislation.

Post by Damien »

I'd been hearing about this Net Neutrality thing for the past week, but at first I dismissed it as another one of those unfounded scare rumors that sweeps through those ridiculous email forwards and gets everyone all worked up. I mean, who the **** is going to try and regulate the internet?

Well, apparently some of these conservative, pompous politicians are giving it a shot, by attempting to give a few major corporations (who no doubt have provided generous campaign contributions to the Representatives involved) exclusive rights to deliver services via the internet.

Basically this means that the large companies like Verizon and Com****suckingcast would have, at their discretion, the right to choose what web content loads quickest for you. And guess how that decision is made? That's what, whatever web content makes them the most money. And if a website doesn't pay their exorbitant fees? It could load up slower than dial-up. Or not at all.

Dreamt of starting an online business? Opening a t-shirt shop online, or putting our your artwork for others to see? Under this legislation you can kiss that **** goodbye, unless you're willing to fork over cash to the big communications companies so they'll allow your stuff to be seen.

As a self-employed cartoonist, a small business owner who makes his living thanks to the internet, you can imagine this concept hits close to home. The internet is the greatest tool we've ever had for getting around these ultra-rich, conservative fatasses who control everything.

Before the internet, if you wanted your work to get out there, you would have to submit it over, and over, and over again, to countless editors who were going to decide whether your idea was good enough to reach the masses. Who the **** were they to decide? Screw 'em.

The internet cuts these large corporations out and they know it. And it drives them nuts. You know what? Good. They don't know what they're doing anyway. Remember when MTV used to be Music Television? Now they showcase music for forty minutes out of the whole day, and they don't even play the whole ****ing videos anymore. It's some jackass droning on about whatever superficial horse**** they're trying to brainwash young America into buying. But thank god they don't play the whole videos, because the only music they play are whatever manufactured crap the big record labels are paying them to play. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Badger Badger Badger may have annoyed the **** out of you. But that came directly from the creators, to the masses. There was no middle-man in a cheap suit saying "umm, well, I think maybe the badgers should be wearing FUBAR, and the snake, could we replace the snake with an asian minority? We're trying to appeal to our sponsors. And I'm worried that the mushroom infers illegal activities, so let's use these new Nike Air Jordans instead. And..." **** that. There's a lot of **** on the internet, but I'd take sifting through the crap to find the good stuff, over having the crap be the only thing offered to me, any day of the week.

This legislation could be a serious issue. You decide.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Discuss.
Image

NARUTO + BLEACH doesn't even come close to the BEST MANGA= ONE PIECE
User avatar
Quest
Tastes like burning!
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:17 am
Location: Singapore

Post by Quest »

that person ranted alot about "this legislation".
but he failed to point out in detail what it is.
Image
User avatar
psi29a
Godo
Posts: 5387
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52 am
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Contact:

Post by psi29a »

Interestingly enough, it isn't the pompous politicos that want this to happen. AT&T and other backbone providers want to tier off the Internet and charge Google, Microsoft, and the like for all the bandwidth they use or is used by people who use their services.

Theory goes that Internet will operate like it always has, however, if you are willing to pay more money, you get priority over everyone else. Sounds fair to me.

What people don't like is that it gives the haves an advantage over the have nots, which doesn't sit well with the certain liberals who want information, and the access to said information to be free or at least easily afordable to everyone but at the same rate to everyone at the same time.

My view is that these networks are now managed by AT&T, and have LONG ago left the reigns of government oversight. You have always paid for tiered service, 14.95 a month for 768down/128up, or upgrade to 3mbit down/ 512down for only 35.95 a month.

Companies want to actually make money from the service they provide... and guarentee that right by making sure legislation is in place to protect their profits.

If there is more to this issue, please bring it up.
User avatar
Daedelus
Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:36 pm
Location: This Island Earth! (Can be yours, if the Price is Right!)

Post by Daedelus »

Psi, I have to channel The Ragin' Cajun James Carville in Old School here. I have no response... that was perfect.

A lot of political bloggers (read: bleeding heart liberals in most cases here) are making a huge, huge deal out of nothing. There is honestly nothing to see here, move along.

What seems to be driving the anger here is the fact that the government is suddenly involved in something generating profit. Sites like the one from the original post are just members of the oh-so-wonderful (sarcasm) slippery slope movement. "Oh noes, if this happens... then this, that, all of that will happen!" It's like sort of like the underpants gnomes episode of South Park:
  • Step 1: Collect underpants
    Step 2: ????
    Step 3: Profit!

Except in this case, we're looking at a slightly modified version with profit moved up:
  • Step 1: Pass legislation protecting the right to profit
    Step 2: ????
    Step 3: End of freedom of *spins wheel* speech!


It's honestly crap like this that has made me stop calling myself a liberal.
arke
Beware my tactical spam
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:53 am
Location: ::1

Post by arke »

From what I understand, this isn't about tiered internet in the sense of speed (i.e., what we currently have) but for Quality of Service. You pay more, you get better QoS at the expense of someone who does not pay. But, this applies to the content providers, not the consumers. So, in order for web sites to remain fast, they must pay a (most likely) monthly fee lest their site's packets get passed over for paying customers.
User avatar
Daedelus
Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:36 pm
Location: This Island Earth! (Can be yours, if the Price is Right!)

Post by Daedelus »

My technologically-enabled friend and I just debated this at length. It eventually boiled down to if we thought of the internet as a utility. The argument ended when neither of us could find a definitive, national list or law about what is or is not a utility. For example, Rhode Island considers 'Ferry Service' a utility while Michigan does not. Is there a federal law that mandates what qualifies for a utility, and what does not? Or is it just a state-by-state thing? Does a utility have to be available in X amount of states to be considered a national utility (or whatever you want to call it)?

The idea here being is that utilities are much more closely regulated and watched than something considered a luxury, as it seems the internet currently is. I am of the stance that if it is indeed a luxury, then corporations or groups are free to charge as they will (within some degree of reason) for the services they provide. If it becomes a utility, then it's a whole new ballgame.
arke
Beware my tactical spam
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:53 am
Location: ::1

Post by arke »

The internet is (was?) regulated as a utility. The idea is that the ISPs and backbones have common carrier status, exempting them from illegal things done on the network (USPS has this, likely other companies do as well).

In order to implement this legislation, they would have to inspect the packets, something that they are currently forbidden to do if they want to keep common carrier status.
User avatar
Quest
Tastes like burning!
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:17 am
Location: Singapore

Post by Quest »

i dont get exactly what this new legislation means.
how is it different from the current state of things?
the impression i am getting is that packets are going to be prioritised(arent they already are?) and if you want to have higher priority, then you have to pay more.

is this just a national thing or a global effect?
Image
User avatar
Daedelus
Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:36 pm
Location: This Island Earth! (Can be yours, if the Price is Right!)

Post by Daedelus »

Quest wrote:i dont get exactly what this new legislation means.
how is it different from the current state of things?
the impression i am getting is that packets are going to be prioritised(arent they already are?) and if you want to have higher priority, then you have to pay more.

is this just a national thing or a global effect?

They aren't current prioritized by common carriers. A common carrier is someone like AT&T etc. who makes up a part of the basic internet infrastructure. Like it was mentioned above, this exempts them if illegal things are done on their network etc. This is a national issue but to say what the US does to its internet infrastructure has no effect on the rest of the world is insane. That's an aspect I haven't really thought on yet, and may cause me to recant.
arke wrote:The internet is (was?) regulated as a utility. (snip for space)

In order to implement this legislation, they would have to inspect the packets, something that they are currently forbidden to do if they want to keep common carrier status.

Please show me where the internet is regulated as a utility. I'm looking for that sort of info, and I can't find anything other than bloggers saying so with no proof. Best I can find are lists of utilities by state and 'the internet' is definitely not on those lists. Of course, I couldn't find Nebraska's utilities so maybe they have it :lol:

I don't think this would force them to inspect the packets. The QoS (quality of service) would only really need to determine the source IP. If IP 192.168.1.100 paid $100 for better QoS, and something came through the pipe from 192.168.1.50 then that would be prioritized under the paying .100 IP. This would be the cheapest solution to enact this legislation. Actually inspecting the packets with speed and accuracy would cost much more, cutting into the newfound profits.
User avatar
Quest
Tastes like burning!
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:17 am
Location: Singapore

Post by Quest »

hmm ok the reason for it is profit. in a sense it does "add value", for paying more you are to go faster.

but what is the excuse for doing it?
national security?
Image
User avatar
Daedelus
Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:36 pm
Location: This Island Earth! (Can be yours, if the Price is Right!)

Post by Daedelus »

Quest wrote:but what is the excuse for doing it?
national security?

I haven't seen this argument anywhere. If you've seen it, I highly doubt it was a rational or serious one.

The 'excuse' for doing it: letting companies profit from doing their business! Yes, they profit now. They will continue to profit. Why shouldn't we let a company evolve their profit structure with the evolution of technology?

If I'm going into business today (starting from square one), I see little benefit to being a common carrier. Common carriers are often large in size. This is a high cost situation in this market. Why shouldn't I remain just a little guy?

While I see the argument about "the big telcoms are just trying to rip us for more cash", you have to remember that it's not always going to be these telcoms in power nor will it be just these telcoms that benefit.
User avatar
panasonic
Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:40 pm
Location: the place above the US

Post by panasonic »

i posted this in the riaa thread by accident, this seems to be the right thread so:

http://dontregulate.com/

a video that explains part of the argument
"Education is the foundation upon which you build your entire lust for cash"-Onizuka

http://www.striporama.com/edits/main.html
Post Reply