Save The Internet

[ydoaPs]

Big phone and cable companies are trying to eliminate Net Neutrality' date=' the principle that protects our ability go where we want and do what we choose online.

 

More than 1.5 million SavetheInternet.com supporters are fighting to keep the Internet free and open for everyone. [/quote']Is this really going on? If companies are really trying to do that, I think it's pretty messed up.

 

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[bascule]

Yes, this is the whole Net Neutrality debate, the one that spawned the whole

meme from now convicted senator Ted Stevens.

 

It's hard to say where I stand in this now. It's odd to see most of the Internet architects are opposed to it (except Vint Cerf, who may have a small conflict-of-interest given his role at Google)

 

Generally I support it, but I do think operators should be able to prioritize certain types of traffic on their network.

[CaptainPanic]

I believe that the whole issue is that it's not such great business to sell internet... There is real competition (as in: more than 5 companies on the market), and the profit margin isn't very large (because they're cutting each other's throat - which is great for the consumer).

 

So, I vote that we just give the managers some big bonus. He doesn't have to do anything for it. Just collect some... eeh... what is "enough" for a modern manager? 50 million euro? Let's all put 10 cents in the bag, and give it to the big chief. Then we can continue business as usual, manager gets bonus, we get our neutral net, everybody happy.

 

In fact, this could be a business model in many other cases. Give a manager a bonus for not doing something. I mean - in the end, the big guy gets the bonus anyway. So, if we just guarantee the bones, regardless of the job he does, then at least they cannot screw it up by stupid short-term thinking.

 

Obviously, destroying the net neutrality will only inspire the construction of a new internet. Such naive ideas can only come from top-managers who need to secure their 2009 bonus.

[bascule]

I believe that the whole issue is that it's not such great business to sell internet... There is real competition (as in: more than 5 companies on the market), and the profit margin isn't very large (because they're cutting each other's throat - which is great for the consumer).

 

The immediate problem is P2P traffic. The profit margins of selling Internet are the immediate problem, and P2P effectively allows consimers to "trade" bandwidth, repaying the cost of delivering content to you by paying it forward to others. Unfortunately, most ISPs are trying to sell an all-you-can-eat model, so while bandwidth you "trade" to other users comes at no immediate cost to you, it does end up costing ISPs money.

 

This isn't helped by the fact that P2P traffic is suspected to account from anywhere from 20% to 50% of all Internet traffic, depending on who you ask

[Saryctos]

This isn't helped by the fact that P2P traffic is suspected to account from anywhere from 20% to 50% of all Internet traffic, depending on who you ask

 

I think it's Ironic that seemingly the purpose of the internet(non-centralized communications), is going to be the downfall of the current internet service infrastructure.

[CaptainPanic]

I think it's Ironic that seemingly the purpose of the internet(non-centralized communications), is going to be the downfall of the current internet service infrastructure.

 

We have non-centralized communications, but centralized providers which have centralized managements who have centralized meetings.

 

What I really wonder is how it is possible that a company can even consider to ask for more money for giving a worse service? (Because, imho, that's what it comes down to?)

 

You can only do that if you're really losing profit. Normally, that means that the free market takes over, and the company goes bankrupt. Now, the providers are considering this altogether (which means that they're making illegal trade agreements and are behaving like a monopolist???).

[ecoli]

i'm not too worried about net neutrality in the long run. How long before ISP (the old players are new startups) start offering net neutrality as part of attracting customers.

 

Competition and technology development will probably solve this one long before the lawyers have it figured out.

Edited March 4, 2009 by ecoli
Consecutive posts merged.

[The Bear's Key]

All I see is the internet becoming more like TV: the main channels (websites) of the big companies will get the most forefront access to viewers, search engines, and overall internet. Think -- how much does it cost to start up a TV station nowadays? The most popular websites are going to tend from the most wealthiest, rather than with the best content, and small joes voicing their opinions will be swept aside by mainstream.

 

 

Here's a smoke and mirrors argument that's being crafted by highly paid message-decorators.

 

• 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.
  

 

• We have to make sure they don't sit on our network and chew up our capacity. We need to pay for the pipe.
  

But.....no matter how polished and shiny their "Joe the Plumber"-esque argument becomes, one thing is certain: it's not our fault these "pipe owners" chose a business model within a system they knew full well in advance doesn't give special treatment to any one person, company/institution, or manner of thought -- regardless of how much $$ any of those have.

 

 

Within the last five years.

 

• Verizon was caught banning pro-choice text messages.
  

 

• AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as the lead singer criticized President Bush.
  

 

• AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- a website that opposed AOL's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
  

 

• A Canadian telephone giant blocked a website sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union.
  

 

• The Madison River ISP blocked customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
  

 

• Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
  

 

• A chief technology officer for BellSouth Corp said 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.
  

 

 

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat#abuse

 

Who will be affected?

 

• Small businesses -- The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.
  

 

• Innovators with the next big idea -- Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for the top spots on the Web.
  

 

• Bloggers -- Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips -- silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.
  

 

• Google users -- Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee another search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
  

 

• Ipod listeners -- A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service it owns.
  

 

• Parents and retirees -- Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.
  

 

• Political groups -- Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their Web sites and online features to work correctly.
  

 

• Nonprofits -- A charity's website could open at snail-like speeds, and online contributions could grind to a halt if nonprofits don't pay Internet providers for access to "the fast lane."
  

These very conversations/debates we're having are at risk.

 

If the companies don't like it, they actually had a choice whether to enter the business as is. No one forced them to enter -- just as we shouldn't be forced to accept their internet roadmap.

Edited March 11, 2009 by The Bear's Key
grammar

[Dudde]

Interesting, I don't usually surf the web (except for here and myspace), I hadn't kept up with this issue.

 

With Genachowski’s nomination, the pieces are falling into place for strong Net Neutrality protections under the new administration.

 

Written into the DNA of President Obama’s economic stimulus is the requirement that those who build Internet networks (using the nearly $4.7 billion in NTIA grants provided by the legislation) adhere to the nondiscrimination and openness principles at the core of Net Neutrality.

 

Obama himself pledged to “take a back seat to no one” in his commitment to Net Neutrality. And the administration’s technology policies now posted on the White House Web site list Net Neutrality as the top priority.

 

These few paragraphs came across as intriguing to me, not because I believe everything the president has to say or do, but because at least a little of it I can stand behind. Anybody more informed on the issue able to tell if that's irrelevant bollocks for me?