Discussion: Online Piracy, Net Neutrality, Killswitch, and Other Internet Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
War Lord said:
Define normal speed. Is that Megs or Gigs or Terras?

In practical terms, it likely won't affect the average user.
uhm... the normal speed you pay for?

My computer runs at 256MBPS, which is noraml high speed internet...

If you paide for a thrillion of mbps then you will navigate at a thrillion mbps in those pages that paid the cablecomm companies and you will travel slower in those who didn't
 
War Lord said:
You can always phone mom and pop's and you can always refine your search terms to get what you want.
Stop defending this bill Jonty. You know this is bull****... just stop. Kissing the asses of all Republicans REALLY must become tiresome when things like this happen, eh?
 
War Lord said:
You can always phone mom and pop's and you can always refine your search terms to get what you want.

You think it's any different today when who ever pays Google or AJ the most gets their web page prioritized?
Hellooo, where in the internet age, phoning is the past!
 
Corinthian™ said:
uhm... the normal speed you pay for?

My computer runs at 256MBPS, which is noraml high speed internet...

If you paide for a thrillion of mbps then you will navigate at a thrillion mbps in those pages that paid the cablecomm companies and you will travel slower in those who didn't

My point is that it's unlikely to affect you or I in any significant way. The most the average person needs is to be able to download a full length movie in a few minutes. This probably won't change.

However, big companies have to move hundreds of terrabytes (or more) of data at a time and it costs more to do that. To have them not pay more means that you, the average user, is subsidizing the big companies internet habits.
 
Slipknot said:
Stop defending this bill Jonty. You know this is bull****... just stop. Kissing the asses of all Republicans REALLY must become tiresome when things like this happen, eh?
:up:
 
Slipknot said:
Stop defending this bill Jonty. You know this is bull****... just stop. Kissing the asses of all Republicans REALLY must become tiresome when things like this happen, eh?

Then quit harping on them on all possible issues. The scratch their ass, you harp. They look at you and you harp.

You probably have wings and claws for feet.

I don't believe that this bill is going to affect most people significantly. It certainly won't affect me.
 
War Lord said:
Then quit harping on them on all possible issues. The scratch their ass, you harp. They look at you and you harp.

You probably have wings and claws for feet.

I don't believe that this bill is going to affect most people significantly. It certainly won't affect me.
You think that's the point?

What about the whole Net Neutrality?
 
What is this about?

This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.

But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful network neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.

What is network neutrality?

Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

What's at stake?

Decisions being made now will shape the future of the Internet for a generation. Before long, all media — TV, phone and the Web — will come to your home via the same broadband connection. The dispute over Net Neutrality is about who'll control access to new and emerging technologies.

On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.

The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.

What's happening in Congress?

Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. The telephone and cable companies are filling up congressional campaign coffers and hiring high-priced lobbyists. They've set up "Astroturf" groups like "Hands Off the Internet" to confuse the issue and give the appearance of grassroots support.

On June 8, the House of Representatives passed the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006," or COPE Act (H.R. 5252) -- a bill that offers no meaningful protections for Net Neutrality. An amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which would have instituted real Net Neutrality requirements, was defeated by intense industry lobbying.

It now falls to the Senate to save the free and open Internet. Fortunately, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (R-N.D.) have introduced a bipartisan measure, the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006" (S. 2917), that would provide meaningful protection for Net Neutrality. This excellent bill may be introduced as an amendment when the Senate takes up its own rewrite of the Telecommunications Act later this summer. The next key hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled for June 20.

Call Congress today: No senator can in good conscience vote against Internet freedom and with the telecom cartel.

Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations?

No. Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly — not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.

But Net Neutrality doesn't just matter to business owners. If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.

Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the "fast lane."

Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like.

* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.
* Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.
* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

Won't more regulations harm the free Internet? Shouldn't we just let the market decide?

Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.

Either we make rules that ensure an even playing field for everyone, or we have rules that hold the Internet captive to the whims of a few big companies. The Internet has thrived because revolutionary ideas like blogs, Wikipedia or Google could start on a shoestring and attract huge audiences. Without Net Neutrality, the pipeline owners will choose the winners and losers on the Web.

And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there's nowhere else for consumers to turn. The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband market. Only 53 percent of Americans have a choice between cable and DSL at home. Everyone else has only one choice or no broadband options at all. That's not what a truly free market looks like.

Who's part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition?

The SavetheInternet.com coalition is made up of dozens of groups from across the political spectrum that are concerned about maintaining a free and open Internet. No corporation or political party is funding our efforts. We simply agree to a statement of principles in support of Internet freedom.

The coalition is being coordinated by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization focused on media reform and Internet policy issues. Please complete this brief survey if your group would like to join this broad, bipartisan effort to save the Internet.

Who else supports Net Neutrality?

The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.

Editorial boards at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News and Christian Science Monitor all have urged congress to save the Internet.



http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Think again warlord just read up there what this means for you.
 
I knew Jonty was going to come in here and defend this bull****.
 
Darthphere said:
I knew Jonty was going to come in here and defend this bull****.

and I knew everyone of you here was going to tear into it.
 
sinewave said:
say you want to order a pizza from a local mom-and-pop pizza place and you go to bring it up on your browser, but instead it goes to pizza hut or domino's.
Who the hell orders a pizza online anyway :confused:
 
The legislation was designed to enable a number of things, which include creating a "streamlined" national approval process that enables telecommunications companies to offer subscription TV services, and allowing cities to build their own broadband infrastructures and implement strong anti-child-pornography and anti-discrimination protections.

So none of the above is true?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1974953,00.asp
 
War Lord said:
Then quit harping on them on all possible issues. The scratch their ass, you harp. They look at you and you harp.

You probably have wings and claws for feet.

I don't believe that this bill is going to affect most people significantly. It certainly won't affect me.


Because you live in Canada.
 
from www.marriedtothesea.com
socially-irresponsible.gif

:)
 
War Lord fails tol realize the obvious.

The one thing that should never have happened with the Internet now looks like it is one step closer to being reality, what I mean is the Internet being owned by companies. The Internet is the only true and ultimate expression of freedom of speech. It's changed the world very quickly, in terms of economy, expression, culture, and exchange of information. Something that wasn't possible before - complete strangers "meeting" everday to discuss interests, have debates, and talk about what's happening in their lives. A total nobody can become famous just for having amusing articles, and make no money from it whatsoever. People can share music. The music industry has become incredibly bland over the years - thanks to large companies - people can discover dozens, hundreds of songs purely through discussions with other net users, I know I have. Regular people have become better entertainers than the people on tv. Flash animations, home made movies, articles, etc etc etc.

But if the big companies own the Internet, do you really think that will continue on the level we have now? Will it even continue at all? The big companies will decide what is best for going on the net, and as far as they are concerned that means whoever has the most money.
 
I loathe this legislation and every a-hole in the House that voted for it. I doubt it will get past the Senate, though, where they've often shot down the House's stupid ideas in the past. This is definitely not a partisan issue. It's more about what holders of public office are bowing to corporate amercia either through greed or just being clueless sycophants, because it's definitely not an idea that would benefit ANYONE but corporations and interest groups with a lot of money to sling around no matter how they may try to paint it. I hope the voting public in America remembers this piece of trash when it comes time to vote later this year.

jag
 
Emrys said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published on Friday, June 9, 2006 by The Nation [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]House Rejects Net Neutrality [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by John Nichols [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The First Amendment of the Internet – the governing principle of net neutrality, which prevents telecommunications corporations from rigging the web so it is easier to visit sites that pay for preferential treatment – took a blow from the House of Representatives Thursday. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bowing to an intense lobbying campaign that spent tens of millions of dollars – and held out the promise of hefty campaign contributions for those members who did the bidding of interested firms – the House voted 321 to 101 for the disingenuously-named Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE). That bill, which does not include meaningful network-neutrality protections creates an opening that powerful telephone and cable companies hope to exploit by expanding their reach while doing away with requirements that they maintain a level playing field for access to Internet sites. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded the Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, (Thursday's) vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation." says Jeannine Kenney, a senior policy analyst for Consumers Union. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In case there was any question that Kenney's assessment was accurate, the House voted 269-152 against an amendment, offered by Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, which would have codified net neutrality regulations into federal law. The Markey amendment would have prevented broadband providers from rigging their services to create two-tier access to the Internet – with an "information superhighway" for sites that pay fees for preferential treatment and a dirt road for sites that cannot pay the toll. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After explicitly rejecting the Markey amendment's language, which would have barred telephone and cable companies from taking steps "to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access…services over the Internet," the House quickly took up the COPE legislation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The bill drew overwhelming support from Republican members of the House, with the GOP caucus voting 215-8 in favor of it. But Democrats also favored the proposal, albeit by a narrower vote of 106 to 92. The House's sole independent member, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, a champion of internet freedom who is seeking his state's open Senate seat this fall, voted against the measure. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joining Sanders in voting against the legislation were most members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including its co-chairs, California Representatives Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, as well as genuine conservatives who have joined the fight to defend free speech and open discourse on the internet, including House Judiciary Committee chair James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, and Intelligence Committee chair Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The left-meets-right voting in the House reflected the coalition that has formed to defend net neutrality, which includes such unlikely political bedfellows as the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, the American Association of Retired People, the American Civil Liberties Union and all of the nation's major consumer groups. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, opposed COPE, while House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, were enthusiastically supported it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Among the Democrats who followed the lead of Hastert and Boehner – as opposed to that of Pelosi – were House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and Maryland Representative Ben Cardin, who is running for that state's open Senate seat in a September Democratic-primary contest with former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume. Illinois Democrat Melissa Bean, who frequently splits with her party on issues of interest to corporate donors, voted with the Republican leadership, as did corporate-friendly "New Democrats" such as Alabama's Artur Davis, Washington's Adam Smith and Wisconsin's Ron Kind – all co-chairs of the Democratic Leadership Council-tied House New Democrat Coalition. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fight over net neutrality now moves to the Senate, where Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan have introduced legislation to codify the net neutrality principles of equal and unfettered access to Internet content into federal law. Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumers Federation of America, thinks net neutrality will find more friends in the Senate, at least in part because the "Save the Internet" coalition that has grown to include more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 800,000 individuals is rapidly expanding. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"This coalition will continue to grow, millions of Americans will add their voices, and Congress will not escape the roar of public opinion until Congress passes enforceable net neutrality," says Cooper. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cooper's correct to be more hopeful about the Senate than the House. But the House vote points up the need to get Democrats united on this issue. There's little question that a united Democratic caucus could combine with principled Republicans in the Senate to defend net neutrality. But if so-called "New Democrats" in the Senate side with the telephone and cable lobbies, the information superhighway will become a toll road. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John Nichols, The Nation's Washington correspondent, has covered progressive politics and activism in the United States and abroad for more than a decade. He is currently the editor of the editorial page of Madison, Wisconsin's Capital Times. Nichols is the author of two books: It's the Media, Stupid and Jews for Buchanan. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]© 2006 The Nation [/FONT]​



In essence every Non-Profit web site in the WWW is ****ed now. That includes the good SHH.
www

Well, **** that.
 
War Lord said:
and I knew everyone of you here was going to tear into it.

Look, if a big company moloch like Microsoft who is normaly known for his ass backwards and self serving influence taking is against the abandonment of Net Neutrality then something is not right with the proposed bill.
 
Immortalfire said:
Who the hell orders a pizza online anyway :confused:


I do twice a week, papajohns.com

i order it right before i leave work, and it is there about 10 minutes after i get home. Freaking Sweet.
 
Does anyone have the list of who voted how on this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"