This is a blog entry written by a friend about Congress's killing the Net Neutrality act:
Thanks to the greedy, self-important pricks in Washington, it failed....again.
I watched some of the debate on C-SPAN last night...utterly disgusting. No matter what arguments were made, all you heard was MONEY, MONEY, MONEY from these politicians. At one point, some Republican hack was whining about VoIP being free of the Universal Service Charge crap we already see on our phone bills. Aww, too bad, a-hole, you have to do with less money?
A two-tier internet IS coming, specifically designed to limit access to certain types of information and sites containing that information. It's the American version of Chinese content control, but packaged differently enough so that our dopey-ass public won't know what's happening...that is, until they try to access their favorite alternative media news site or other "premium" bookmark and find they have to pay more to view it.
A lot of these elitist politicians HATE the fact that we are free to view information from diverse sources and discuss events online, that bloggers can freely criticize without editorial filters and catch their dirty little secrets...they want to rein it in any way they can. And they are. The plug is about to be pulled on the free-for-all nature of the internet, all because we dare to explore ideas beyond what the evening news or corporate newspaper feed us. The serfs have had it too good for far too long, and the lords want their power back.
Now, his post was the first I'd ever HEARD of "net neutrality" ANYthing....& then to top it off, I found this:
Court backs government broadband wiretap access WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday upheld the government's authority to force high-speed Internet service providers to give law enforcement authorities access for surveillance purposes. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What did Scotty say in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock? "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
There will always be enough free thinking hacker nerds out there to overcome anything the government tries to impose in the way of the 'internet' and online 'freedom of speech'. It is the way of the future and you can't let any greasy fat dirty corrupt morally bankrupt politician tell you otherwise.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not sure your reaction applies very well to the specific issue at hand, Andrew.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What? The government wants to control the net for their own purposes... by implementing new systems of 'tiers' - the 'net has become it's own entity and well - no one can really control it - and if they try there will always be a subset of people who will create something similar but bypasses what ever has been put inplace to stop it. I.e. napster etc.
Why doesn't it apply?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Because you've got the situation reversed. The internet is "neutral" in the sense being used, today, only because that's how things were set up by engineers in the beginning. (And because the technologies necessary to perform the deep examination and sorting of packets have only recently come into being.) What "the" government has done here is reject codifying this de facto setup.
I'll read that guys blog in a sec but - isn't anything done buy "the government" - the US government going to only apply to sites in their country - rather like the Chinese filtering content. The rest of the world wouldn't be affected as the 'net has become a global phenomena?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You don't understand. "Net neutrality" is not about the protocols and the hardware. It means there is no discrimation (filtering, censoring, ...) of the contents of IP packets being transmitted based in any way on commercial or political interests. What Congress has done by explicitly NOT formalizing this principle as law is to open the door to exactly that kind of abuse, which indirectly DOES affect the rest of the world.
(Also, "that guy" is Tim Berners-Lee. Maybe you've heard of him.)
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I thought it was - but I couldn't see his name on the site - it was a bit of a give-away when he said "When, seventeen years ago, I designed the Web, I did not have to ask anyone's permission."
Now I see it says timbl's blog. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I agree with Cartman, a billion plus minds adding to the worlds thought process are cut off from sites, like this one, debating politics and expressing what it means to have freedom in a democracy.
So the filtration being done on the Chinese is having an adverse affect on you already, missing out on possibly great ideas that these people may be having. Heck, the next Great Bird may be in some small village in the middle of China, but since his idea is not within Party lines he can not get it out.
Imagine what Flare would be like if someone filtered out Lee, or Liam? Well, a blessing, to be sure, but not the same Flare either.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
What's also being overlooked is the ISP devilry. The perfect example is AOL. When you sign up for AOL, they provide you with internet access but they also provide you with THEIR content. IIRC in the beginning, AOL didn't even access the true internet, it was its own separate net community. When you search on AOL, they prioritize their functions, their partner companies products first ( as does most search engines today ) and other content last. What the absence of net neutrality will allow them to do is to throttle information you receive. Say you find something you want to access on a site that hasn't paid the premium to be high on that ISP's list. Instead of opening that site and getting 300KB/s download they can downgrade you to 5KB/s simply because that site isn't on its high end "Priority" list. Your options will be to find another source for the information (an APPROVED provider) or suffer the slow loading speeds. This is a form of economic censure AND blackmail. As I mentioned above, search engines have been discriminating their data for years and making a killing, now the ISP's want to do the very same thing. And, of course, this doesn't EVEN scratch the potential abuse by governments.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
AOL did use caching servers, I do not know if they still do though. Where I lived in the sticks though getting an AOL account and makeing a call down state, or out of state, was the only way to connect. What, only a little over a decade ago that was.
The throttling I had never heard of. Although with SBC becoming AT&T the connection service for DSL has gone from okay for DSL to really good for dial up.
I can hit the Add Reply button and it will tell me server not resolved. mmm, I am here, making the freaking post, aren't I? Of course, getting this resolved has been a walk through the minefield, but hey, it's their ear's that get the abuse.
I used to think the movies showing the one or two huge corporations running the world was far fetched, but no more.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Welcome to Weyland/Yutani...
Press 1 for incubation initiation, press any other key for incubation initiation.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: I agree with Cartman, a billion plus minds adding to the worlds thought process are cut off from sites, like this one, debating politics and expressing what it means to have freedom in a democracy.
See sometimes the net to me sounds like a primitive version of the Borg collective - not with the whole bad - loss of free will etc - but that you have a link of millions of minds across the globe, granted we aren't pouring into each others minds but we aren't sitting there at our computers reading stuff out aloud to people - a lot of it is straight from the mind to the net.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The whole aol thing - is that why they always (and some still do) advertise "aol keyword:fucknutters" etc.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
It's kind of scary to think that in a decade or so, we may be able to access the internet with only our minds and a computer implant. Someone might create a computer virus that fries your brain. Or uploads dirty perverted anime furry dickchick fantasies into your head. Now THAT'S scary!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
A decade? I'm thinking that's a somewhat... optimistic estimate.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yes, the Eugenics Wars really did set us back at least fifty years.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: It's kind of scary to think that in a decade or so, we may be able to access the internet with only our minds and a computer implant. Someone might create a computer virus that fries your brain. Or uploads dirty perverted anime furry dickchick fantasies into your head. Now THAT'S scary!
I don't want Windows security holes in my brain!
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: The whole aol thing - is that why they always (and some still do) advertise "aol keyword:fucknutters" etc.
They still do that in some places? I haven't seen that as part of an ad in quite a while.
B.J.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It's rare, but I still see it once in a great while. I haven't paid close attention, though. I'm guessing it may only be used by Time-Warner companies.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: I thought it was - but I couldn't see his name on the site - it was a bit of a give-away when he said "When, seventeen years ago, I designed the Web, I did not have to ask anyone's permission."
Now I see it says timbl's blog.
That's crazy- Al Gore made the internet (He's a cyborg from the future, you know).
$50 bucks says the first to lobby for content restrictions is the MPAA/RIAA.
Posted by StationMaster (Member # 63) on :
I have been following this with massive dismay. I still do not fully understand what the Nanny's want, but the truth is, the internet is nothing more than this:
A full reflection of the the human race that populates it. It is thought, desire, anger, greed. It is happy, sad and insane (and so much more).
There is no light without darkness.
To start looking at regulation, compartmentalising, blocking, raiding and destroying is akin to saying "Stop being human".
Ten years ago, when I first accessed the net, I was astnoished at what I could find and how easily it could be found. What followed was a revolution, in both technology, software and human interaction. And the key word there is Revolution.
I know a fair amount about the darker side of the net - some by choice, and other not by choice. And one thing I know is this. One man spoils 100,000 peoples fun, and all that is going to happen is they will find a way. The technology will evolve, the software will evolve. As commercial and political takes control, another thing will grow in its place.
Enough said.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by StationMaster: I have been following this with massive dismay. I still do not fully understand what the Nanny's want, but the truth is, the internet is nothing more than this:
A full reflection of the the human race that populates it.
HA! I WIN! The human race is made of PORN. My work here is done.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Skynet/Porn has spoken.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
I'm a bit confused about what they are proposing and I suspect the confusion comes due to my fuzzy grasp of the underlying technology of the internet.
I am dimly aware that when I open a browser or check my mail, that little packets of data with headers (the IP addresses of sender and receiver and maybe some content data) get sent someplace by my computer with everyone elses packets and some super-sorters pass my data upstream in the direction of where the IP address is. And so currently there is no prioritizing of that data, and my packets, like everyone elses get passed in the order they are received.
Their nefarious plan as the people who own those big backbones or parts of those big backbones is to analyze each packet and, based upon the content of the packet, the sender, the receiver, etc, to give precedence to some while delaying or perhaps even omitting others. Such that if my data packet sent via my RinkyDink ISP, LLC gets passed into BigBackbone ISP Incorporated's network, my little data packet might sit there for a few cycles while their own customer's packets get shuffled. And maybe if the contents of my packet are objectionable that maybe that little packet just gets deleted and isn't passed along to anywhere. Is that the fear/the idea of what's going on? I really am asking, I clearly don't understand exactly what's at stake.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It's more than just that.
Let's say that BellSouth offers a package of "gold priority" to websites, that they will have better load times, fewer page errors, not as many problems with access. Let's say that, Oh, TrekBBS decides it's a good idea & signs on; conversely, poor jobless Charlie here can't afford the package & doesn't much like the potential for stratification it holds.
Now you're a BellSouth customer looking for a sci-fi board. You wander through a bunch & find that TrekBBS shows up loud & clear, like sitting next to a radio transmitter. You come to flare but it's slower, it lags, images don't load, bandwidth seems compressed than the other. Eventually, you just give up & never come here again. Fewer people show up & fianlly the website dies.
It's WCS to be sure, but imagine that same scenario for the small internet business as well as no-fee sites & you get the general stink of it.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
quote:To start looking at regulation, compartmentalising, blocking, raiding and destroying is akin to saying "Stop being human".
Earth! Hitler! 1938!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
3.) Chief Internet Scryer would be neater.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Why does Google have a "Chief Internet Evangelist"???
Because you can give yourself any ol' title you like. If Elton John can become a Knight, this turkey can be the Chief Internet Evangelist.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Maybe not turkey so much. I mean if I developed something as important as the TCP/IP protocols, I'd hope people might stop calling me turkey (I would, however, make an exception for jive-turkey).
My neighbor, who is sort of a conspiracy nut, has been blathering to me about Web 2.0 for a while. I make a point of ignoring him, but I guess this is a different name for this packet-prioritization. I always just assumed he was talking about a private internet and maybe an entirely separate protocol. As someone who (although not clearly) does remember the days of x,y, and zmodem, kermit, FidoNet, Opus, etc., I imagined something along those lines, but, like modern.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Ahh, yes, the old bbs days.....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I wonder if satelite service would allow U.S. citizens to access the web via a U.K. ISP and bypass all this "teir" nonsense?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not sure I see the Web 2.0 ("Look! Ajax! And stuff! How's about some venture capital?") connection.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Yeah I'm not sure I ever really got the whole Web 2.0 thing. Like it seems to be "Things used to look dumber, and not be quite so dynamic. But now... they look fancy and are frequently more dynamic." Like why or how that constitutes a paradigm shift or version number update or whatever and not like a gradual evolution and migration as technologies and bandwidth improve is beyond me. But it's entirely possible I'm missing the point.
The Net Neutrality thing is a pretty technical consideration, maybe. And so after my rant about it over Father's Day dinner, my mother sent me a video from those fine, egalitarian, and completely divorced from Telco interests folks at HandOff.org. It's here if you want to see it: http://www.dontregulate.org/ . Anyway she wanted me to explain how it was a bad thing again.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
So... all bytes are equal, but some are now definitely more equal than others.
Motivations, you ask? Well, this shining piece of deep Republican thought explains why net neutrality would be Bad For Business. And when something is bad for business, it is bad for quality of $ervice, and we can't have that, can we?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Oh no, we can not have the shareholders or CEOs making less than anything near ungodly amounts of money.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially."
Maybe it's really because your staff tried to send you AN ENTIRE INTERNET.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh man, Cartman and I are reading the same tube-feeds.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Beats feeding from the same tubes, I guess...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
A little backround is in order, Senator Stevens is President Pro Tempore of the Senate and third in line in presidential succession, and more importantly for this issue, he is chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Senator Stevens explained the internet in a speech.
quote:There�s one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.
But this service isn�t going to go through the internet and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.
Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o�clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let�s talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren�t using it for commercial purposes.
We aren�t earning anything by going on that internet. Now I�m not saying you have to or you want to discriminate against those people
[�]
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says �No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet�. No, I�m not finished. I want people to understand my position, I�m not going to take a lot of time.
[�]
You�re asking now that to tell people who do have these systems that they can not ask that someone pay for the increased capability provided for what � for business. I don�t have to have that kind of speed they�re talking about, in terms of speeds that they�re going to put in the internet. But people who are streaming through 10, 12 movies at a time or a whole book at a time for� consumers� those are not you and me, those are not consumers, they�re the providers. And those people who provide these things and use the internet for a delivery service, rather than for a concept of communication, that�s the difference.
[�]
Here we have a situation where enormous entities want to use the Internet for their purposes to save money for doing what they�re doing now. They use FedEx, they use the delivery services, they use the mail. They deliver it in other ways and they want to deliver it vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It�s not a truck.
It�s a series of tubes.
And if you don�t understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
He was lucky to get it when he did, after all, sending an entire internet through the email will consume a lot of tubing.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No way was any mesage that was sent to him in any way affected by commercial uses of bandwidth (much less delayed for hours). Morons probably typed in his street address and hit "send".
It looks like we'll be seeing the villification of online business- a first step in the taxing of internet use (specifically I mean- I alreday pay an extra .02 per dollat "telecommunication tax" on top of my phone and cable bills- as Florida once again leads the country in fucking over the adverage joe).
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, it's shape helps a wee bit.
I can't find my last phone bill out, must have filed it already, but Illinois is no friend of the people, so I bet I pay a bit of politicians pay on it also.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I personally did not know untill the customes at my work started complaining about paying $.13 tax on faxing instead of the normal $.06 sales tax.
Where that money goes is anyone's guess- certainly not into our overcrowded classrooms.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mocked by comedian Jon Stewart for calling the Internet a bunch of tubes, U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Thursday he is open to going on Stewart's popular "Daily Show" for a rebuttal. ADVERTISEMENT
The comedian has parodied the dean of the Senate Republicans for rejecting calls by some Internet companies for a law to block high-speed Internet providers from charging higher prices to carry certain content. Backers of such a law say it would preserve what they call "Net neutrality."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)