Posted on 04/22/2006 10:31:38 AM PDT by Delphinium
Subject: Congress is selling out the Internet
Hi,
Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet.
Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon.com doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer.
Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says, "The internet can't be free."
The free and open Internet is under seige--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here:
http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet
A list of all the ways you might be affected by Net Neutrality is located on the bottom of this link: http://civic.moveon.org/alerts/savetheinternet.html
Thanks!
I pay TimeWarner for bandwidth to access the Internet. They should not be able to limit the sites I visit by who pays them. This would be like ATT saying I can't call people who have T-Mobile. Net-neutrality is the type of regulation the government should be doing because it keeps the open market functioning. Microsoft has to compete with Google for searches based on the strength of their search engine, not by being able to pay providers to turn of Google.
Don't know much about the argument, but I do know nothing is free. ;)
Sure they should. And you should be able to say, "screw you, Time-Warner, I'm taking my business elsewhere."
This would be like ATT saying I can't call people who have T-Mobile.
...or like T-Mobile giving you free cellular calls to other T-Mobile customers but charging you to call customers of other providers.
But as far as I understand it, the proposal isn't about limiting which sites you can visit anyway. I believe that the ISPs want to be able to offer customers the ability to get priority traffic on their networks for a price.
What is "network neutrality"?
Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider.
For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.
Why is this important now?
Congress is currently drafting a bill that would revise and update the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The current draft does address network neutrality, but the language could definitely be stronger. For example, the bill states that certain classes of Internet providers "may not unreasonably" impair, interfere, restrict or limit applications or services, but offers no definition of what is "unreasonable."
What do you mean by "Internet applications"?
Put simply, an Internet application allows a computer user to send or receive data. If you've ever sent an email, downloaded a song, played an online video game, instant-messaged a friend or watched a video on the web, you've used an Internet application. If you telecommute to your job, you likely use applications to access documents on your company's network or to participate in video conferences. As technology advances, more and more of our media will be delivered via the web. Internet applications will allow you to watch television and movies, listen to the radio, make telephone calls, play interactive video games and more - all online.
Many Internet service providers are also in the application business. They should not be allowed to prevent their customers from using competitors' applications or charge them more for doing so. Network neutrality would also keep them from discriminating against competitors in more insidious ways - like making sure their own video applications or Internet telephone services work faster and better on their own networks than services offered by competitors.
Is this a real threat?
It's not just a threat: There have already been instances of Internet providers blocking access to Internet applications that allow you to access your company's network, share files with peers - even send large attachments (like digital photos) in your email. In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission sanctioned a rural telephone company named Madison River Communications for blocking its DSL customers from making phone calls over the Internet.
Foreign governments have also sought to block certain web pages and Internet applications. In China, the government uses sophisticated software to control which websites can and cannot be accessed. Bloggers receive government warnings for writing words like 'freedom' and 'democracy.' Web searches for sensitive keywords often lead to the equivalent of an Internet black hole.
Meanwhile, the industry likes to say that network neutrality is "a solution in search of a problem." But cable Internet providers are not prohibited from discriminating against the content available using their services; therefore they could legally restrict access to any website or Internet application they choose whenever it suits their bottom-line economic, or even political, interests.
Are there legitimate reasons why an Internet provider would block content or an Internet application?
Yes. Internet providers should be able to block spam emails, as well as viruses that could harm their networks and their customers' computers. But industry interests argue that they should be able to block anything that interferes with "quality of service." That definition is too broad: it's possible that a provider could decide to block Google or Yahoo in favor of its own search engine, saying it's in the interest of better "quality of service."
What are some ways I might be affected?
Providers can restrict or disrupt your access to web content and applications in a variety of ways, including:
Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else. Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content. Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service. Restricting Internet Telephone: Services that allow you to make low-cost, long-distance telephone calls using a high-speed Internet connection (sometimes called VoIP, or Voice over Internet Protocol) are becoming more and more popular. But traditional phone companies who are now getting into the Internet business don't want to lose their customers to Internet phone companies like Vonage and Skype. However, there is nothing stopping them from blocking their competition from using their network.
Where can I find out more?
Most people do not have the option of picking a different cable company.
I'm not going to support MoveOn.org though. They're a cesspool of an organization, and it was because of their absurd manipulative politics that I switched from Democrat to Republican. They'll get no support from me on this. I'll instead work with some TRUTHFUL organizations on it.
Your friend is right to support Net Neutrality, but she is wrong to get her information from MoveOn.org. Even this letter from them grossly inflates things.
It isn't the end-user who would pay, it would be the web sites you want to access
What the network providers want to do is to be able to say to a web site "pay us a fee, and your traffic gets thru the network faster than non-fee-paying websites". So you go to one news site and you are able to watch streaming video with good performance, but another site's streaming video is unacceptably spotty, because the first site is paying for better network performance
A campaign needs to be started up...
Any company that pays an isp for better throughput of their
data should be blacklisted.
An example needs to be made of the first company that tries this...or allows themselves to be blackmailed into paying.
Tell your friend that it's nothing more than a good old-fashioned protection racket.
Bugsy: "You don't want nuttin' to happen to your internet business, do you? Nuttin' like, maybe, your customers can't reach you anymores, or your online storefront don't load no more... Alls you got to do is pay us a little "insurance" each month and we'll see that nuttin' happens to your business from now on!"
-PJ
I thought so, thanks for answering. I am to busy to stay in the discussion, but am checking back to read.
Next thing you know, they'll want to prevent cab drivers and cocierges from recommending only the hookers who give them a kickback.
Most people have plenty of options for internet service providers. And if the existing ISPs fail to satisfy, you can bet that competitors will spring up to fill the game. It's this neat little thing I like to call the "free market".
It isn't the end-user who would pay, it would be the web sites you want to access
Yes, I know. And speaking of "network neutrality", the network doesn't care whether you're sending a request to a website or a website is sending a response to you. It's all just traffic. The Internet companies want to give certain packets priority on their networks, again for a fee.
So you go to one news site and you are able to watch streaming video with good performance, but another site's streaming video is unacceptably spotty, because the first site is paying for better network performance
Yes, I'm aware of this. What's the problem?
Which they are also fighting to keep by blocking WiMax. If companies/cities could easily set up Wimax networks then we would have a competitive market and wouldn't need government regulation.
So let me make sure I have this right. The market is being screwed up by government regulation, and you're therefore advocating more government regulation as a fix?
Hey, suppose I tried to host live streaming video from my home Internet connection, with its asymmetric 128kbps upstream, and thousands of people tried to watch it. Guess what? They'd see crappy performance. They wouldn't see crappy performance if the streaming video were being hosted by, say, CNN. Why? What's the difference? The difference is that CNN is paying their ISP undoubtedly thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for a big, fat pipe, and I am not. They're paying for better performance.
So people do this already. The difference is that people only do this with their direct ISP, the first "hop" in the network. Once the packets get handed off to the backbone, they're all treated equally. The Internet companies want to change this. And again, I don't see the problem. It's their frickin' network. Their routers, their copper, their fiber. They can do whatever the hell they want with it. And if consumers are displeased, they'll face competition.
I'm heartily sick of people who feel a sense of entitlement. It disgusts me, whether it's some welfare who thinks she deserves government money for every baby she whelps, some minority who thinks he deserves preferential treatment... or some Internet user who thinks he deserves the right to use a private company's network on his terms, not theirs.
Whine, whine, whine, the Internet should be free. No it shouldn't. It should be provided by businesses to consumers on mutually acceptable terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.