Internet neutrality: Democrats back net neutrality

[beeksc1]

Democrats now actively support net (internet, network) neutrality.

Every Democratic Senate Candidate Now Backs Net Neutrality
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/24/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4291423.shtml

Will net neutrality be constricted?
Other recent reports?
Ensuring freedom and the internet?

As a few other posts briefly mentioned, Big business (telecommunication companies) are trying to change how the internet works.

As Ed Whitacre of AT&T told BusinessWeek

Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...?"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Another recent article reporting that Democratic candidates are supporting net neutrality.
Democrats Come Out For Net Neutrality

Though Net Neutrality is not a partisan issue, as evidenced by bipartisan support outside of Congress, primary support (but not all of it) for enshrining what is called the Internet's First Amendment has come from Democratic legislators.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/07/25/democrats-come-out-for-net-neutrality

As of 2006, Republicans failed to provide support for net neutrality; yet, in 2008, some Republicans are emerging:
The Net Neutrality Debate: Still Sizzling

Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Sen. Byron Dorgan teamed up to introduce the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, which would bar network operators from blocking or degrading access to Internet content and services. On the House of Representatives side, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., has been sponsoring similar legislation.
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/The-Net-Neutrality-Debate-Still-Sizzling-63649.html

The telecommunication companies are attempting to craft an online system where a standard fee for an Internet Service Provider would only include a few hundred (or so) commercial sites; and accessing other sites would cost extra money. If net neutrality is constricted, the internet that we know today would virtually disappear. As traffic would significantly decrease for sites that are not included in the commercial ISP package, it would be ridiculously expensive to maintain an independent site; i.e., the number of Internet sites would virtually diminish at an exponential rate. In this scenario, online access would practically be the same as the corporate television and the conglomerate radio stations. Do not really think it will happen (or hopefully it will not take place.) ; but, big business is pushing.

Other current reports about net neutrality, especially those that cover policy?
Will net neutrality be limited?
Measures to ensure net neutrality?

 

[INRM]

I consider the idea of eliminating net neutrality as being horrifying. Allowing companies to own parts of the internet and regulate those areas opens up a serious problem.

If the internet is more greatly privatized to the point that the big companies own huge sections of the web, they don't have to obey free speech rules since it's their webspace. Now this applies already on web-forums, but however it only applies on one little website -- I leave that one website, problem solved. This would far more greatly exacerbate the problem -- free speech on the internet would be at the mercy and whim of big telecom companies. It could theoretically stifle freedom of speech considerably, and could censor anything they didn't want you to see.

To make it worse, at least the US government, often is in cahoots with the telecom companies (and big business in general -- especially during conservative administrations) they could essentially use their influence to indirectly restrict conduct, and access to information on the web in general.

Already totalitarian nations such as China do actively censor information to keep their people in the dark. Whether direct (the government, or the telecom companies directly doing it), or indirect (the government influencing telecom companies to censor), the result is ultimately the same.


INRM
BTW: Considering Rupert Murdoch is always buying out news media outlets, if he could get his claws on a bunch of telecom companies, he'd be able to completely suppress any information he doesn't like.

 

[beeksc1]

^ Yeah, that is a more accurate wording; elimination of net neutrality is horrific. And yeah, the federal government of many, many nations that are "world players" (specifically the US) are definitely "in bed" (or as previously noted and more precisely in cohoots) with big business. Even though governments can be considered a necessary evil, it is not the government itself that is the primary entity that is responsible. Bad leaders (misleaders) have infilitrated our governments and have been (and are) using the government as a tool against the people; and the masses often put up with this or do nothing about it or fail to discuss what is going on with the bigger picture. The US government was founded on the principles of self-sufficiency; but, now the current political ideology pushes reliance upon government. Thus, in this scenario, government gains more control over public affairs and limits individual freedoms.

And yeah, communist China is Big Brother's model for the new world they are attempting to forge.

In China, freedom's just another word for nothing left to choose
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/ed...for-nothing-left-to-choose-20080731-3nyq.html

+++

Contacting the US Congress

I urge [NAME] to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 (HR 5353). [NAME] should stand with the public and ensure that that communications technology becomes an essential part of the livelihood of all Americans. In 2006, more than 1.6 million people spoke out forcefully in support of Net Neutrality -- the principle that keeps the Internet open, innovative and democratic. [NAME] must stand with us to make high-speed Internet services open, available and affordable to all Americans.

I urge the Senator/Representative to work with me to pass Net Neutrality legislation in the new Congress. Thank you.

https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?alertId=103&pg=makeACall

Provisions of Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008

To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes.

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

+++

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And is not that one of the primary functions of a legitimate government?
To protect our rights that are inalienable, especially when another entity is trying to infringe upon those rights?

 

[INRM]

beeksc1,

I'd have to agree largely with what you have to say. No government should have the right to eliminate net neutrality.


INRM

 

[Wudang]

Sheesh! Explain how restricting torrent users ability to congest networks stops free speech.
Show evidence that they will restrict access to "a few sites".

 

[geni]

Show evidence that they will restrict access to "a few sites".

You don't that would be excessive but it is fairly trivial to arrange things so that the new cable you put down will only carry traffic for core sites (basicaly the alexa top 100 and anyone else prepared to pay). Now at first this speeds up for everyone the top sites and the ones who purchesed core status speed up because they got more bandwidth and everyone else because the top sites are useing less bandwidth on their network. But over time every site outside the core either has to pay for core status or accept that increaseing traffic will result in their perfomance falling.

 

[Almo]

While I can understand the ATT guy's argument, the Internet works because it's free. If they aren't making enough money to pay for the pipes from ISP fees, then they need to raise that. I don't have a problem with bandwidth caps to throttle the heavy torrent users. I'm on an ISP that does that. But you gotta hit over 1GB per day (average 15GB/14 days is how it works).

The thing that worries me is whether or not customers would put up with the restrictions non-net-neutrality would entail. If enough of them put up with it, us power-users are screwed.

 

[beeksc1]

Sheesh! Explain how restricting torrent users ability to congest networks stops free speech.
Show evidence that they will restrict access to "a few sites".

"Evidence" is not always in black and white, especially toward this kind of stuff. Some discerning has to be figured by the person.

Executive Wants to Charge for Web Speed.

William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.

People and entities that would be negatively affected by this scheme:

Small businesses, Innovators with the next big idea, Bloggers, Google users, Ipod listeners, Online shoppers, Telecommuters, Parents and retirees, Political groups, Nonprofits

Practically everyone. It would be a huge blow for democracy, freedom, information; etc., etc., etc...

While I can understand the ATT guy's argument, the Internet works because it's free. If they aren't making enough money to pay for the pipes from ISP fees, then they need to raise that. I don't have a problem with bandwidth caps to throttle the heavy torrent users. I'm on an ISP that does that. But you gotta hit over 1GB per day (average 15GB/14 days is how it works).
The thing that worries me is whether or not customers would put up with the restrictions non-net-neutrality would entail. If enough of them put up with it, us power-users are screwed.

I definitely can see where you are coming from; yet, I take the viewpoint that the internet should be free. I am not really for high taxation; but, it is necessary. And instead of US tax dollars, which (right now) go to fund the Iraqi War ($4,500,000,000/year) and the nefarious War against Drugs, that money should be spent on domestic issues. Education, limited (and stress I the limited aspect) social programs, programs that create more jobs, reusable fuel, solar energy, wind power...

The US is supposedely a democracy; and does not a democracy run best when all the people are edified (educated)?

Charging outrageous amounts of money for an ISP is counterproductive (within the larger picture), kind of like charging ungodly amounts of money for higher education (college, graduate school).

Net neutrality is definitely on the-line; still, I think NN will survive?