Nooooo!

View testimonialsView Artwork
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Nooooo!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    3,535
    Thanks
    236
    Thanked 307 Times in 195 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Nooooo!

    WIRED blog: Justice Dept. OPPOSES NET NEUTRALITY!

    I'm sure you've all seen the banners and the blogs and the web pages about Net Neutrality. Perhaps I don't grasp the full context of this, but apparently the Justice Dept. has declared it's official position on the matter; Against.

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.

    The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

    Several phone and cable companies, such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.

    The Justice Department said imposing a Net neutrality regulation could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks. It could also shift the "entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers," the agency said in its filing.

    Such a result could diminish or delay network expansion and improvement, it added.

    The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery.

    "Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention," the agency said in its filing.

    The agency's stance comes more than two months after Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras cautioned policy makers to enact Net neutrality regulation.

    Such a regulation could prevent rather than promote Internet investment and innovation and have "significant negative effects for the economy and consumers," the Justice Department said in the filing.

    Supporters of Internet regulation have said that phone and cable companies could discriminate against certain Web site and services.

    However, the agency said it will continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace.

    © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    347
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 30 Times in 21 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think i seen this before and it was a internet hoax. the internet isn't owned by anyone group the most anyone could charge is for access and that seem to be going down for more high speed connections.

    It would push too many people off and it would make it harder to get anyone to go online and the FCC want people online not cut off.


    I could be wrong but i am sure this will not happen as there are too many people that would sue if not make some very nasty noisy on this.

    I say write or cal the FCC before running and screaming to the net... this is how this kind of stuff keeps going.

    CC

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Land of Blackanese
    Posts
    2,317
    Thanks
    339
    Thanked 197 Times in 132 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This is bogus news. I'm not saying it's false, but it is completely retarded. You can't have middle aged housewives making laws and rules for something that completely ran and monitored by people younger than 30! It's like saying that Microsoft can't have a dominance over home PCs...it's totally going to benefit companies and conglomerations that can afford the extra money that comes with it....

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks
    860
    Thanked 847 Times in 457 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    What about sites hosted outside the us? What about users located outside the us? I don't think it makes much sense and I'm not sure it is feasible.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 30 Times in 22 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I swear, I freaking hate this country sometimes. The Justice Dept. doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. I wonder how much AT&T paid them.
    ---
    Qitsune
    - I never thought of it that way, actually. When you remember that the Internet is a global network, it opens up a new can of worms. Though I think since the speeds are strictly ISP based, other countries' Internet will work just the same if their providers still abide to Net Neutrality.

    Check out my sketchbook.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    tx
    Posts
    2,150
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    yeah its all lame business. they cant 'regulate' any sort of revenue for internet use, other than raise fees used to ACCESS the internet thru ISP's. which of course are all major media coporations.. which are governed by the FCC.. which is a 'federal agency' thats run by the 'government'

    wait a sec..! - JAG

    it's only after you've lost everything, that you're free to do anything..
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    792
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Qitsune View Post
    What about sites hosted outside the us? What about users located outside the us? I don't think it makes much sense and I'm not sure it is feasible.
    I don't know a lot about this issue, but as I understand it that would be irrelevant. All the justice department has said is that they don't think it should be a law that net neutrality be enforced, not that ISPs have to be net... biased? All this means (AFAIK) is that, say, Comcast could charge extra to customers who visit youtube a lot, or don't want their bittorrent throttled. I don't like it, but as far as I'm concerned it would be within their rights as a business.

    Sketchbook support group #7
    Andorz
    Koshime
    Number_6
    Slash
    Mike Frank
    Haldor
    BDFoster
    Gloominati
    _________________________________________
    The Hunger site
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks
    860
    Thanked 847 Times in 457 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    You have to understand that traffic on the internet is relayed, traffic from all over bounced from one node to the other, I'm not sure ISP's can identify which packets comes from where fast enough to prioritise them. Especially if you are a US user checking a japan hosted site or something like that.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    415
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked 58 Times in 37 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    oh noes, USA is policing teh intervebs!



    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    london,england
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    so much for a free country heh

    Any fool can know. The point is to understand.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    338
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Wink

    The Internet is not free, folks. Unless you are stealing access from your neighbor's wireless router (because he is too stupid or lazy to encrypt his system), then everyone pays for access, whether they like it or not.

    Net Neutrality is a complex and often argued case. It's most basic premise is this:

    People for Net Neutrality often say that broadband providers may end up using their power to block applications they don't like, and to be able to block access between content providers, especially other competitors. Therefore, Net Neutrality should not be changed, because right now the only difference you pay for is speed. Dialup users can access the same materials as broadband users, they just have to wait longer to get it.

    People against Net Neutrality say that content should be regulated, just like telephone and postal services. "Premium services" has not really been defined, but most folks in the field know that they are talking about the greatest eaters of bandwidth (and costs); namely downloading video and audio files, bit torrents, and chatroom traffic. Their argument is that they will be able to use the additional revenue generated from charging for what they consider premium services to upgrade their networks and provide even more services.

    Remember, this article is just the Justice Department's point of view, all they are saying that it should not be illegal for companies to charge more for what they consider "Premium Services". Remember, competition is good. If you don't like how much your ISP is charging you, go to another company! Of course, if only one provider is the only game in town, you're pretty much hosed.

    In a June 2007 report, the Federal Trade Commission urged restraint with respect to the new regulations proposed by network neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers," such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

    Don't panic just yet.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,281
    Thanks
    653
    Thanked 484 Times in 213 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Az View Post

    People against Net Neutrality say that content should be regulated, just like telephone and postal services. "Premium services" has not really been defined, but most folks in the field know that they are talking about the greatest eaters of bandwidth (and costs); namely downloading video and audio files, bit torrents, and chatroom traffic. Their argument is that they will be able to use the additional revenue generated from charging for what they consider premium services to upgrade their networks and provide even more services.
    "People against Net Neutrality" are people who are lobbying for the telecom and/or telecoms who are spending millions lobbying Congress into allowing them to continually regulate their own industry.

    The telecoms WANT you to keep thinking "this is no big deal" as they gain more and more control over telling you how much you need to pay them. Just take a gander at what Comcast is doing RIGHT NOW to their very own customers. And this is only the start of it if net Neutrality is not protected.

    Comcast Cuts Off Heavy Internet Users


    Remember, this article is just the Justice Department's point of view, all they are saying that it should not be illegal for companies to charge more for what they consider "Premium Services". Remember, competition is good. If you don't like how much your ISP is charging you, go to another company! Of course, if only one provider is the only game in town, you're pretty much hosed.
    Let's keep in mind that the Justice Department has become heavily politicized. They shouldn't be - but let's face it, they've become the bedmates of this corporate loving administration.

    Sure, "competition is good", but why aren't there more options to the Comcasts, Verizons, etc. for us lowly consumers? Oh sure, there are PLENTY of providers for dial-up; but what about broadband?


    In a June 2007 report, the Federal Trade Commission urged restraint with respect to the new regulations proposed by network neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers," such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents.
    Niiiiice one, FTC. "Trust the marketplace" is what the FTC has decided to do. If our marketplace was this trusting, so great so open in providing YOU with access and updated technology - why is this:

    The Communications Workers of America (CWA) released a report of their own on June 26 detailing that U.S. households that do have broadband Internet access lag far behind users in other countries in terms of connectivity speed.

    A study of 80,000 broadband users found that median download speed in the U.S. is 1.9 megabits per second (Mbps), compared to 61 Mbps in Japan, 45 Mbps in Korea, 21 Mbps in Finland, 18 Mbps in Sweden and 7.6 Mbps in Canada.
    Above can be found in this article: FTC Nixes Net Neutrality

    Don't panic just yet.
    No time to panic, since last summer, I've been busy writing emails/letters to my congresscritters informing them that Net Neutrality MUST be protected. Period.

    More resources to read:

    Study: Ending Net Neutraility Would Hurt Consumers.

    AT&T Blocks Calls To Competing Conference Call Service. (after many, many complaints - this is what resulted:
    Telcos Lift Block on FreeConference.Com

    Ask a Ninja: YouTube: Ask a Ninja about Net Neutrality

    The Simpleton's Guide to Net Neutrality (YouTube Vid)

    Save The Internet

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    338
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for net neutrality, I just answered the question whether or not this was a hoax, and offered some clarification on the two points of view. I didn't write any of those comments, they all came from an article from Wikipedia. I also made a couple of comments based on the fact that I've been doing the communications thing for about 26 years now.

    I'm not in the habit of jumping to conclusions, nor am I in the habit of listening to only one point of view. There are always two sides to every coin, and I tend to gather as much information as possible before making a decision either way. I'm a scientist, this is the way I tend to do things.

    Quote Originally Posted by CreativeSmugbug
    Sure, "competition is good", but why aren't there more options to the Comcasts, Verizons, etc. for us lowly consumers? Oh sure, there are PLENTY of providers for dial-up; but what about broadband?
    One word - Infrastructure. Broadband assets are owned by their respective companies. If you want cable modem speeds, you gotta pay the cable company to use their wire under the ground or in telephone poles. If you don't want a cable modem, there's still DSL from the telephone company, which uses it's own infrastructure. The same goes for satellite internet access. Having three options keeps prices down. If there were only one option, then the sole company in the area that provides broadband services can name their price, because there would be no competition.

    Writing to your "Congresscritters" is good, and I do it often. The one thing to keep a close track of if you decide to follow this path is to keep track of their voting record. Do they listen to their constituency (as they should), or do they vote in favor of lobbyists? If they aren't listening to you, you are wasting your time. My current senators are idiots regarding this topic (and several other topics that are not a part of this discussion)... I won't be voting for those two people again.



    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside
Register

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
The Art Department
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook