Net Neutrality
- Thread starter ipaintminis
- Start date
I badly stated my point. I\'m against ISPs meddling with the internet acces.. thus FOR net neutrality.
But the big dogs in the Lobby are hungry for smaller dogs, and as far as my trust for american lobbyism go, I\'m sure they will stop that from happening. There is prolly already a lot of \'greasing\' going on down there on this very topic, while those in favor of net neutrality can only depend on talking sense...
sense vs. money, who\'s gonna win?
But the big dogs in the Lobby are hungry for smaller dogs, and as far as my trust for american lobbyism go, I\'m sure they will stop that from happening. There is prolly already a lot of \'greasing\' going on down there on this very topic, while those in favor of net neutrality can only depend on talking sense...
sense vs. money, who\'s gonna win?
EArkham
Necromancer
I should be surprised that an important issue like this has fewer replies than the \"have you eaten spam\" thread, but somehow I\'m not.
Don\'t think for a second that this is only an American problem. If COPE passes, the ISPs are going to be making a lot of money from this... and other countries, seeing this success, will almost certainly follow suit with similar laws.
Nevermind the personal infringement of losing access to your favourite sites, this could potentially be a deathblow to small internet business. Imagine if your ISP decided that you should not only be prohibited from accessing certain online stores, but instead actually redirected you to theirs. Now the ISPs can remove competition entirely with big name sites like eBay and Google by simply redirecting you to their own versions.
Imagine what would happen if ISPs began blocking sites based on political or religious views. Companies like Chic-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby are not opened on Sundays; imagine if an ISP with similar convictions decided that their customers should not have access to non-religious sites on Sundays.
Maybe those are extreme examples, but the potential for abuse is with this is extremely high.
I\'ve heard that if it comes down to it, large net companies like Google will just buy out the telecoms to prevent this sort of thing, but I\'d rather the bill be dead in the water before it gets that far. Plus I\'m not sure how feasible that really is as a solution.
Meh, enough rambling on my part.
Kep
Don\'t think for a second that this is only an American problem. If COPE passes, the ISPs are going to be making a lot of money from this... and other countries, seeing this success, will almost certainly follow suit with similar laws.
Nevermind the personal infringement of losing access to your favourite sites, this could potentially be a deathblow to small internet business. Imagine if your ISP decided that you should not only be prohibited from accessing certain online stores, but instead actually redirected you to theirs. Now the ISPs can remove competition entirely with big name sites like eBay and Google by simply redirecting you to their own versions.
Imagine what would happen if ISPs began blocking sites based on political or religious views. Companies like Chic-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby are not opened on Sundays; imagine if an ISP with similar convictions decided that their customers should not have access to non-religious sites on Sundays.
Maybe those are extreme examples, but the potential for abuse is with this is extremely high.
I\'ve heard that if it comes down to it, large net companies like Google will just buy out the telecoms to prevent this sort of thing, but I\'d rather the bill be dead in the water before it gets that far. Plus I\'m not sure how feasible that really is as a solution.
Meh, enough rambling on my part.
Kep
Despite my misgivings, I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. As I stated, I\'m very wary of government regulation, but I think you hit the nail on the head with this issue. THough I fear their general ineptitude, I think that only the government has the power to combat the \"Big Guys\" in the ISP world. Guess that\'s why I\'m a Libertarian and not an Anarchist
Mr.S.Marbo
New member
Hmmm I don\'t really see the benefit of either law. I don\'t know anything about US law but I don\'t see how you could have a law in the UK that allowed situations where ISP\'s could block, restrict or slow access to legal websites.
If this was allowed those ISP\'s with a bigger share of the market could simply crush the smaller competition by manipulating prices to ensure that people who sign up with smaller ISP\'s are only able to get access to limited sites or have a very slow bandwith when accessing the majority of sites.
In the UK and Europe Competition Law makes it illegal for dominant companies to use unfair trading terms, excessive or predatory pricing, refuse to supply goods / services or restrict access to goods and services.
This bill seems to give companies a legal way of crushing smaller competitors by using restrictive pricing and unfair terms. That would make it bad for all us net users.
Similarly a law that makes it illegal for ISP\'s to behave in this manner seems not much use. At least not in Europe where Competition laws could be used to deal with ISP\'s that abuse their dominant position to restrict or slow user access to competitors sites.
I can\'t see anything like that starting here..... but maybe my understanding of it is wrong. Certianly any law that gives ISP\'s powers like that is a very very bad thing.
If this was allowed those ISP\'s with a bigger share of the market could simply crush the smaller competition by manipulating prices to ensure that people who sign up with smaller ISP\'s are only able to get access to limited sites or have a very slow bandwith when accessing the majority of sites.
In the UK and Europe Competition Law makes it illegal for dominant companies to use unfair trading terms, excessive or predatory pricing, refuse to supply goods / services or restrict access to goods and services.
This bill seems to give companies a legal way of crushing smaller competitors by using restrictive pricing and unfair terms. That would make it bad for all us net users.
Similarly a law that makes it illegal for ISP\'s to behave in this manner seems not much use. At least not in Europe where Competition laws could be used to deal with ISP\'s that abuse their dominant position to restrict or slow user access to competitors sites.
I can\'t see anything like that starting here..... but maybe my understanding of it is wrong. Certianly any law that gives ISP\'s powers like that is a very very bad thing.
philologus
Subgenius
Government involvement in anything almost always leads to more restrictions on freedom...having said that; competition is vitally important in all commerce. The problem lies in the fact that once a \"good\" law is passed too few citizens monitor closely enough to prevent it from evolving into more restrictions...the precedent is already set.
This is a complex issue. Well actually it isn\'t. It\'s really a simple issue where no one argues for the happy medium.
Consider the internet the \"information highway.\" Now ask yourself the following question. Do you want an HOV lane on the information superhighway?
Bear in mind that the information superhighway is misleading. Your data packet is not like a car. A car has a say in how it gets routed from point A to point B, your data packet does not. It hops from one network to another in what is supposed to be a logical and orderly manner.
Right now it\'s a frendly net and every packet is equal in the net. That\'s nice and all democratic and everything, but it sucks for anything that demands real time parameters where an packet has to be at a destination within a certain period of time.
Some broadband systems desire realtime access. Some applications (surgery over the internet) strongly demand realtime access.
I\'m sorry, but if push came to shove the doctor who is performing remote heart surgery should have priority over my CMON forum packet, don\'t you think?
So, getting back on the highway model, should you have \"pay lanes\" that guarentee fewer information highway delays within the general information highway system? Remember every lane you reserve for the pay lane is one less lane the common packet can\'t use. Should some packets have the right to skip the line because they have paid more? What happens if every lane is a paid lane?
This is the question that congress must decide. Remember that Al Gore invented the internet lol and that the internet is the last bastion of American Socialism left in the world where everyone is treated just as poorly and even policemen with sirens blazing can\'t go any faster.
Consider the internet the \"information highway.\" Now ask yourself the following question. Do you want an HOV lane on the information superhighway?
Bear in mind that the information superhighway is misleading. Your data packet is not like a car. A car has a say in how it gets routed from point A to point B, your data packet does not. It hops from one network to another in what is supposed to be a logical and orderly manner.
Right now it\'s a frendly net and every packet is equal in the net. That\'s nice and all democratic and everything, but it sucks for anything that demands real time parameters where an packet has to be at a destination within a certain period of time.
Some broadband systems desire realtime access. Some applications (surgery over the internet) strongly demand realtime access.
I\'m sorry, but if push came to shove the doctor who is performing remote heart surgery should have priority over my CMON forum packet, don\'t you think?
So, getting back on the highway model, should you have \"pay lanes\" that guarentee fewer information highway delays within the general information highway system? Remember every lane you reserve for the pay lane is one less lane the common packet can\'t use. Should some packets have the right to skip the line because they have paid more? What happens if every lane is a paid lane?
This is the question that congress must decide. Remember that Al Gore invented the internet lol and that the internet is the last bastion of American Socialism left in the world where everyone is treated just as poorly and even policemen with sirens blazing can\'t go any faster.
Just an Update:
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=A18C7B5E-DF3E-4890-9F77-0F635A1F606E
Looks like this might be a bit of Common sense at last.
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=A18C7B5E-DF3E-4890-9F77-0F635A1F606E
Looks like this might be a bit of Common sense at last.
