Net neutrality legislation

SteamWake · 10-21-09, 10:45 AM

Net neutrality... sounds fair right?

Quote:

While network neutrality has been the standard practice of network operators (as of 2007), there is no law that requires it. It erupted as an issue in 2006 when a grassroots response led by the SaveTheInternet.com Coalition opposed telecom legislation that either did not address or did away with network neutrality. In 2007 there is at least one bill to enshrine neutrality in law and on July 22nd, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) announced a participatory project to suggest ideas for and revisions to a national broadband policy bill. The FCC also opened the question of whether it should enforce network neutrality in 2007.

Be very wary of this legislation as it basically comes down to censorship.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ty_Legislation

mookiemookie · 10-21-09, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Be very wary of this legislation as it basically comes down to censorship.

How?

Dowly · 10-21-09, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

How?

Sssh! Dont spoil his tinhat parade.

August · 10-21-09, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

How?

Yeah i've been hearing the same warning but haven't gotten any specifics yet.

SteamWake · 10-21-09, 11:28 AM

It will simply enable the goverment with the power to mandate what can and cannot be published on the web.

I think the interenet is already pretty neutral for every drudge there is a daily kos or two or three so why the need for legislation?

Its the same motivation as in goverment run healthcare... control.

Quote:

Chorus Against Net Neutrality Grows

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...?hpid=sec-tech

mookiemookie · 10-21-09, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

It will simply enable the goverment with the power to mandate what can and cannot be published on the web.

No it doesn't. Not at all. It prevents ISPs from limiting access to sites that haven't paid a fee. So if you oppose censorship, you should be in favor of net neutrality.

Thomen · 10-21-09, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

No it doesn't. Not at all. It prevents ISPs from limiting access to sites that haven't paid a fee. So if you oppose censorship, you should be in favor of net neutrality.

What mookie said.

I keep hearing "rumors" about net neutrality and how bad it is for years now, but all I have seen so far is, that it is supposed to guaranty free flow of information/data on the net, regardless of source, format or content.

MothBalls · 10-21-09, 02:53 PM

The end result of this is going to be bad for the US consumer. It's already starting to happen. Many broadband companies used to provide unlimited bandwidth. They started traffic shaping, cutting down bit torrent traffic and other bandwidth hog applications. This was done to make sure services were available to everyone. That started the uproar.

Now they are starting to put a caps on total bandwidth. Eventually you'll start getting charged by the Gb and you'll pay more during prime time than off hours. Just like phone service has been doing for years. Sometimes the voices in my head, the ones wearing tin foil hats, tell me this was the plan from the beginning and they are using net neutrality as the excuse.

SS107.9MHz · 10-21-09, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MothBalls

The end result of this is going to be bad for the US consumer. It's already starting to happen. Many broadband companies used to provide unlimited bandwidth. They started traffic shaping, cutting down bit torrent traffic and other bandwidth hog applications. This was done to make sure services were available to everyone. That started the uproar.

Now they are starting to put a caps on total bandwidth. Eventually you'll start getting charged by the Gb and you'll pay more during prime time than off hours. Just like phone service has been doing for years. Sometimes the voices in my head, the ones wearing tin foil hats, tell me this was the plan from the beginning and they are using net neutrality as the excuse.

Thet is what non-neutral net is, traffic shapping and such, net neutrality legislation aims to restrain ISPs from doing that... Net Neutrality=Freedom of traffic=nonrestrictive traffic measures

CaptainHaplo · 10-21-09, 06:25 PM

I too have heard alot about this - and so far the ONLY beef I have against it is that it appears (from the limited research I have had time to do) to create a "standard" of access to which everyone should have. However, in creating this standard, there is no ability to offer "above standard" access.

The problem here isn't censorship, the problem is it will KILL businesses.

Everyone - and by that we are talking an individual or a company - will end up with the same size "pipe" to the internet. Given current technology, and what is on the near horizon, you have a limited total pipe to push data through. With "net neutrality", grandma who never turns on her computer will have a certain amount of throughput reserved for her, should she ever do so. Just because its not in use doesn't mean someone else can use it until she wants to.

Now when grandma checks her email, gets a new cookie recipe and then logs off, did she use nearly the amount of pipe that say.... a major company did? Of course not. But with this, that same company is limited to the same data flow amounts as grandma.

VOIP? Forget about it. Phone costs alone for companies will skyrocket. Oh... and don't forget - your friendly neighborhood google and yahoo and msn and everyone else - they get the same size pipe you do. So what happens when 1000 people try to access google at the same time, and your all trying to get your request through that limited pipe? Can you say LAG????

Again, my understanding is incomplete, but what I have seen looks like some serious support by the phone companies, because this will give them a serious influx of cash oon POTS service again, a market that has languished in recent years.

One thing you should always do when you look at any legislation.....

Follow the money....

People seem to be concerned this is censorship. Its actually more about hurting larger businesses.

antikristuseke · 10-22-09, 01:36 AM

CaptainHaplo, if that is what happens, I will eat my entire supply of tin foil.

Zachstar · 10-22-09, 01:50 AM

CH your understanding is likely brought forth by the propaganda given by major corps that have been making money by slowing down or outright blocking traffic.

First of all Grandma DOES have the same amount of bandwidth as you. That isnt anything new. If some jackass on the street is using his connection to pirate all seasons of CSI it slows grandma down not the other way around. That is called Cable internet.

This legislation is to prevent the underhanded tactics of some ISPs to further their interest deals with some companies. Sudden slowdowns of some video sites while big player sites get through faster killing revenue of smaller buisnesses.

SteamWake · 10-22-09, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) spoke against net neutrality regulations today at an event put on by the Safe Internet Alliance. Representing the songwriters, singers, actors, producers and other entertainers in Memphis and Nashville, she said the creative community does not want the federal government to interfere with how they are able to get content to consumers via the Internet.

http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/6...-the-internetq#

mookiemookie · 10-22-09, 10:18 AM

Long on fearmongering, short on facts.

Zachstar · 10-22-09, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Long on fearmongering, short on facts.

Agreed whole lots of that coming from the anti-neutral camp.

Good thing is it stands a very good chance on getting passed.

10-21-09, 06:25 PM	#10
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	I too have heard alot about this - and so far the ONLY beef I have against it is that it appears (from the limited research I have had time to do) to create a "standard" of access to which everyone should have. However, in creating this standard, there is no ability to offer "above standard" access. The problem here isn't censorship, the problem is it will KILL businesses. Everyone - and by that we are talking an individual or a company - will end up with the same size "pipe" to the internet. Given current technology, and what is on the near horizon, you have a limited total pipe to push data through. With "net neutrality", grandma who never turns on her computer will have a certain amount of throughput reserved for her, should she ever do so. Just because its not in use doesn't mean someone else can use it until she wants to. Now when grandma checks her email, gets a new cookie recipe and then logs off, did she use nearly the amount of pipe that say.... a major company did? Of course not. But with this, that same company is limited to the same data flow amounts as grandma. VOIP? Forget about it. Phone costs alone for companies will skyrocket. Oh... and don't forget - your friendly neighborhood google and yahoo and msn and everyone else - they get the same size pipe you do. So what happens when 1000 people try to access google at the same time, and your all trying to get your request through that limited pipe? Can you say LAG???? Again, my understanding is incomplete, but what I have seen looks like some serious support by the phone companies, because this will give them a serious influx of cash oon POTS service again, a market that has languished in recent years. One thing you should always do when you look at any legislation..... Follow the money.... People seem to be concerned this is censorship. Its actually more about hurting larger businesses. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

10-22-09, 01:50 AM	#12
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	CH your understanding is likely brought forth by the propaganda given by major corps that have been making money by slowing down or outright blocking traffic. First of all Grandma DOES have the same amount of bandwidth as you. That isnt anything new. If some jackass on the street is using his connection to pirate all seasons of CSI it slows grandma down not the other way around. That is called Cable internet. This legislation is to prevent the underhanded tactics of some ISPs to further their interest deals with some companies. Sudden slowdowns of some video sites while big player sites get through faster killing revenue of smaller buisnesses. __________________

10-22-09, 10:18 AM	#14
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	Long on fearmongering, short on facts. __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

10-21-09, 02:53 PM	#8
MothBalls Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,012 Downloads: 20 Uploads: 0	The end result of this is going to be bad for the US consumer. It's already starting to happen. Many broadband companies used to provide unlimited bandwidth. They started traffic shaping, cutting down bit torrent traffic and other bandwidth hog applications. This was done to make sure services were available to everyone. That started the uproar. Now they are starting to put a caps on total bandwidth. Eventually you'll start getting charged by the Gb and you'll pay more during prime time than off hours. Just like phone service has been doing for years. Sometimes the voices in my head, the ones wearing tin foil hats, tell me this was the plan from the beginning and they are using net neutrality as the excuse.

10-22-09, 01:36 AM	#11
antikristuseke Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Estland Posts: 4,330 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	CaptainHaplo, if that is what happens, I will eat my entire supply of tin foil.