Members Andersonology Posted May 10, 2006 Members Share Posted May 10, 2006 I know that this may be considered "off topic, political crap that need to go to open jam", but this may very will affect your ability to simply surf to this site and enjoy on-topic discussions. For all you "Bush" supporters, I dare you to explain to my why this is a "good" thing...unless you have a vested interest in the big Telco. This makes me {censored}ing sick!!! link Proposed rule changes would tangle the Web By Michael Socolow Originally published May 9, 2006 Congress wants to change the Internet. This is news to most people because the major news media have not actively pursued the story. Yet both the House and Senate commerce committees are promoting new rules governing the manner by which most Americans receive the Web. Congressional passage of new rules is widely anticipated, as is President Bush's signature. Once this happens, the Internet will change before your eyes. The proposed House legislation, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), offers no protections for "network neutrality." Currently, your Internet provider does not voluntarily censor the Web as it enters your home. This levels the playing field between the tiniest blog and the most popular Web site. Yet the big telecom companies want to alter this dynamic. AT&T and Verizon have publicly discussed their plans to divide the information superhighway into separate fast and slow lanes. Web sites and services willing to pay a toll will be channeled through the fast lane, while all others will be bottled up in the slower lanes. COPE, and similar telecom legislation offered in the Senate, does nothing to protect the consumer from this transformation of the Internet. The telecoms are frustrated that commercial Web sites reap unlimited profits while those providing entry to your home for these companies are prevented from fully cashing in. If the new telecom regulations pass without safeguarding net neutrality, the big telecom companies will be able to prioritize the Web for you. They will be free to decide which Web sites get to your computer faster and which ones may take longer - or may not even show up at all. By giving the telecoms the ability to harness your Web surfing, the government will empower them to shake down the most profitable Web companies. These companies will sell access to you, to Amazon.com, Travelocity.com and even BaltimoreSun.com, etc. What if these companies elect not to pay? Then, when you type in "amazon.com," you might be redirected to barnesandnoble.com, or your lightning-quick DSL Internet service might suddenly move at horse-and-buggy speed. It might appear that the direct ramifications of this bill are somewhat obscure. Why should you care, if your Internet fee isn't altered? Or if your Web surfing will (possibly) be only minimally disrupted? (The telecoms understand that completely barring access to certain sites - especially the most popular ones - would be counterproductive.) You should care because any corporate restriction on information gathering directly counters the original purpose of the World Wide Web. "Universality is essential to the Web," says its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. "It loses its power if there are certain types of things to which you can't link." If calling up the Web site of your favorite political commentator takes far longer than surfing to a commercial site, the new laws will have a direct impact on the Web's democratic utility. The proposed laws also facilitate future steps toward corporate censorship. Do you think that the telecoms, under the proposed regulations, would make it easy to visit the Web sites of their disgruntled - or possibly striking - employees? The proposed new rules have received surprisingly sparse media coverage. The new laws have economic, political and social ramifications. There are several explanations for the silence. The most probable is simply that because the laws have strong bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, they do not appear particularly newsworthy. COPE has been promoted vigorously in the House by both Texas Republican Joe L. Barton and Illinois Democrat Bobby L. Rush. While a few legislators are attempting to preserve net neutrality - most notably Democratic Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - they are clearly outnumbered. The history of American telecommunications regulation does not offer a promising model for the future of net neutrality. In the late 1800s, Congress approved of Western Union, America's telegraph monopoly, censoring the Associated Press. The 1934 Communications Act resulted in political discussion over the national airwaves being tightly moderated by CBS and NBC. Most telecom laws are sold to the public as the "natural evolution" of communications technology. Yet there is no truly natural evolution to our telecommunications laws. Only very rarely is regulation completely ordained by physics or technological limits. More commonly, it emerges from the political process. This is news to many Americans unaware of their own media history. Many people believe the Internet's decentralized structure guarantees that no company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship - whether by corporate or state interests - simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your screen, it will be too late to complain. Michael Socolow is an assistant professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine. His e-mail is michael.socolow@umit.maine.edu. Copyright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NoirAbattoir Posted May 10, 2006 Members Share Posted May 10, 2006 {censored} that, they just wanna get a piece of the action. All this would mean is that every bit of web content would be like you see on ABC. That's the last thing I want from the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ZJD Posted May 10, 2006 Members Share Posted May 10, 2006 History repeats itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members b_man911 Posted May 10, 2006 Members Share Posted May 10, 2006 Originally posted by ColorsoundKid {censored} that, they just wanna get a piece of the action. All this would mean is that every bit of web content would be like you see on ABC. That's the last thing I want from the internet. the internet is the reason i dont watch TV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members farfignewgon Posted May 10, 2006 Members Share Posted May 10, 2006 I thought this was a hoax from way back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members papa taco Posted May 10, 2006 Members Share Posted May 10, 2006 This makes me want to put a KFC bucket on my head and shred till I'm dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members farfignewgon Posted May 10, 2006 Members Share Posted May 10, 2006 I'm calling shenanigans. The infrastructure it would take to throttle bandwidth per website, per internet user is insurmountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members whowasthursday Posted May 10, 2006 Members Share Posted May 10, 2006 By the way, just wanted to point out that, regarless of how true it is, this is an op/ed piece, and not a news story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Andersonology Posted May 10, 2006 Author Members Share Posted May 10, 2006 Originally posted by whowasthursday By the way, just wanted to point out that, regarless of how true it is, this is an op/ed piece, and not a news story. I believe it's actual bill, no? "The proposed House legislation, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), offers no protections for "network neutrality." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ZJD Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 More news here:BBC Dudes The web should remain neutral and resist attempts to fragment it into different services, web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee has said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 Originally posted by grunge-rock I'm calling shenanigans. The infrastructure it would take to throttle bandwidth per website, per internet user is insurmountable. woulnt be the first time congress tried to regulate something they didnt understand... or more correctly i should say, something they dont have the foresight to see even 5 years down the road on. A big part of this has to do with regulations of phone and cable companies... they are pissed that the internet is going to put them out of biz eventually. they want a safety net... you can start an internet phone or TV service and skirt many of the regulations you would normally have to abide by through conventional delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIKILOCKEDOUT Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 Doco's have been made regarding this kind of threat before and the word was from all the Computer guys and hackers to experts etc that if any controlling body tried to really lock down the internet that it would be no problem for hackers or whoever wanted to creat alternative internet universes where people could get on with doing it old school ... a kind of underground would form up - they couldn't stop it basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chirpy_72 Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 For all you "Bush" supporters, I dare you to explain to my why this is a "good" thing...unless you have a vested interest in the big Telco. Since when does Congress = Bush ???? It wasn't Bush that proposed this. I'm a conservative, but I'm not a Bush supporter. However, please give credit where credit is due. The legislative branch is composed of both Republicans AND Democrats, both of which are helping push this proposed bill along it's merry way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeremy Skrenes Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 Yeah, the op/ed piece said this thing has bipartisan support. Which means that democrats AND republicans are both stupid. Something I think we all can agree on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chirpy_72 Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 Originally posted by Jeremy Skrenes Yeah, the op/ed piece said this thing has bipartisan support. Which means that democrats AND republicans are both stupid. Something I think we all can agree on. +1,000,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members puddinstone Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 lol People look for any excuse to rag Bush.... if the government does something wrong...Blame Bush!!!! Not that I whole heartly support the man but come on!! Local city ordinaces....Bush is taking over the world.... on topic..... This should make every one realize how lucky we are...they do this kind of sensoring in other countries... China for instance....they can't link to sites that speak against the government or sites the government claim to be "unfit" We should speak out and fight for our freedom but at the same time realize there is worse stuff going on through out the world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Andersonology Posted May 23, 2006 Author Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 Yeah...well welcome to the "United States of China"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Grand Toad Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 Goose step lessons are brought to you by AT&T, Haliburton, and Bechtel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beezdeez Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 So a bunch of old wankers who can't even program their own VCR to tape a new episode of "This Old House" want to bog down certain sites if they don't pay a "toll." Are they going to subsidize the air we breathe next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeremy Skrenes Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 I've read up a bit on this net neutrality thing, and IF it's done right, it could really help. But I have the following objections: 1. I HIGHLY doubt it will be done right. I strongly suspect that a significant number of people will fall through the cracks in this newly proposed system. Which doesn't make it any better than the internet we have now. 2. The net, at least in the US, is the ultimate expression of free speech. You can be as smart or stupid as you want, and nobody can stop you. i'm afraid that regulating it will compromise the first amendment. I hope if it does pass that it will be taken to the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilbo26 Posted May 23, 2006 Members Share Posted May 23, 2006 Obviously the politicos on both sides don't want people being well informed, otherwise they'd be out of a job. I doubt this will work though, its not like they can force servers in other countries to bow down to US law. I think the current boys in the government have made a mockery of it enough already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuyaGuy Posted May 24, 2006 Members Share Posted May 24, 2006 Originally posted by Andersonology By giving the telecoms the ability to harness your Web surfing, the government will empower them to shake down the most profitable Web companies. These companies will sell access to you, to Amazon.com, Travelocity.com and even BaltimoreSun.com, etc. What if these companies elect not to pay? Then, when you type in "amazon.com," you might be redirected to barnesandnoble.com, or your lightning-quick DSL Internet service might suddenly move at horse-and-buggy speed. conjecture, your honor. most of the article is full of conjecture, actually. conjecture and speculation. that said, the bill, if passed, would change internetting severely, turning it more into a corporate vehicle. but i believe that was inevitable, given america's history for regulating media in a way that benefits the large media sources, as well as other large corporations. unfortunate but inevitable. Originally posted by 48729zjd More news here:BBC Dudes The web should remain neutral and resist attempts to fragment it into different services, web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee has said. i like how the article announces:"The British scientist [sir Tim Berners-Lee] developed the web in 1989 as an academic tool to allow scientists to share data."Al Gore will be furiously jealous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.