Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39
  1. #1

    Open Internet needs to be law!

    More people need to sign this petition. I urge everybody to go to Save the Internet and sign the petition.

    Idiots like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T etc need to be stopped.

    Net neutrality needs to be law.

    If I could only go to certain sites for a fee like cable channels, I would cancel my internet right away.
    Last edited by M Bacon; 10-20-2009 at 10:14 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,238
    Are ISP trying to limit the internet to packages similar to television?

    I don't think that will ever happen. There will always be one company who won't do that and everyone will switch over to that company.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan B View Post
    Are ISP trying to limit the internet to packages similar to television?
    I have wondered the same thing. It has never been entirely clear to me what exactly these ISPs are accused of planning.

    -mike
    Mike G. - Limestone Networks - Account Specialist
    Cloud - Dedicated - Colocation - Premium Network - Passionate Support
    DDoS Protection Available - Reseller Program @LimestoneInc - 877.586.0555

  4. #4
    I heard something about that television thing a while back but mostly its about what ISP you use. The ISP could choose what it wants you to view and slow down other parts of the internet.

    If you use AOL as your ISP, it could slow down Google.

    The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- 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. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
    These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
    The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Posts
    688
    This is a joke.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    /usr/bin/perl
    Posts
    971
    I agree 100% with the OP.

    The argument about regulation "hurting competition" is the same argument that big business has made in this country for literally 100+ years, from railroad rebates to line sharing to traffic shaping, in order to maximize profit and minimize competition; the situation is the exact opposite of what hundreds of millions of lobbying/advertising dollars convince the average zombie-consumer to believe.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Z5-Karl View Post
    This is a joke.
    I hope that its a joke or we are going to be deep trouble.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike - Limestone View Post
    I have wondered the same thing. It has never been entirely clear to me what exactly these ISPs are accused of planning.
    I've previously read some articles claiming that the ISPs would be able to block certain websites while favoring others, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with it at all.

    My guess is that this has more to do with P2P networks consuming vast amounts of resources. Maybe even P2P, video and online gaming.

    P2P networks, I believe, are the main culprits which resulted in this issue coming about. Imagine tens of thousands of computers left on all day and all night downloading movies over the ISP networks so the customer can add the titles to their own private home media center.

    So, if this was to all go through I think what we would be more likely to expect is that P2P network traffic and maybe a few other types would become throttled in some way so that they do not slow down or interfere with other network traffic.

    In the past year Comcast came up with their own solution. Simply that if you use more than 250GB of bandwidth in a month you would receive a warning + guidance on lowering bandwidth usage. If you continue using more than the allotted bandwidth in future months then they would drop you as a customer, without the option to use them again for a period of time. So, essentially, Comcast went from unlimited to limited bandwidth.

    A year or two ago I believe it was Verizon's CEO who made statements about all these big Internet companies getting rich off Verizon's networks. His rationalization was that their data traverses Verizon's networks without compensation, or something like that. What he didn't seem to realize back then was that the end users pay their ISP in order to receive that data in addition to the websites paying their hosting/bandwidth expenses to also get that data to the user. Verizon gets paid twice for the same data transfer, customer pays & website pays as well (maybe not paid to Verizon directly, but there are deals with them somewhere along the line by one of the network providers).
    ...john2k...

  9. #9
    Makes no sense
    --------------------------------------
    Sunny - www.CraftsVision.com
    --------------------------------------
    We burn midnight oil and present you hand crafted websites.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,064
    Quote Originally Posted by john2k View Post
    I've previously read some articles claiming that the ISPs would be able to block certain websites while favoring others, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with it at all.

    My guess is that this has more to do with P2P networks consuming vast amounts of resources. Maybe even P2P, video and online gaming.

    P2P networks, I believe, are the main culprits which resulted in this issue coming about. Imagine tens of thousands of computers left on all day and all night downloading movies over the ISP networks so the customer can add the titles to their own private home media center.
    So really, does the issue come down to web site blocking/charging or simply torrent (etc.) blocking/charging?

    -mike
    Mike G. - Limestone Networks - Account Specialist
    Cloud - Dedicated - Colocation - Premium Network - Passionate Support
    DDoS Protection Available - Reseller Program @LimestoneInc - 877.586.0555

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    318
    I feel better now that I helped save the internet
    Limestone Networks - Dedicated Server Hosting
    Premium Network - 24/7/365 Support - Dual Intel Xeon Servers Now Available
    Dallas Datacenter - Fully Routed Backend Network
    http://www.limestonenetworks.com 1-877-586-0555

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike - Limestone View Post
    So really, does the issue come down to web site blocking/charging or simply torrent (etc.) blocking/charging?
    I believe the core issue with net neutrality is with ISPs being able to block or throttle torrent/P2P type traffic. They do not just want to be "neutral" and let P2P traffic run wild & congest their networks.

    Even as it is now, many ISPs do not permit the hosting of webservers via their connections. I wouldn't recommend anyone doing so, but for anyone who would want to they might not be permitted, depending on the ISP. I suppose this would be another example of the ISPs not being "neutral" with regards to the traffic going over their networks.

    From what I remember about Verizon's CEO's viewpoint on all this, it seemed as though he simply was trying to find a way to charge twice for data transfer, which might mean the blocking of websites if those sites do not pay. What this does not address, though, is the fact that web publishers do already pay for this bandwidth even if their payments do not go directly to Verizon.
    ...john2k...

  13. #13
    What is going to happen if they pass a law for net neutrality is the bandwidth providers will inverse their offerings, ie. they will guarantee a 2 meg service with a bonus feature to surf the web at 20 meg. Basically they go from what they are doing now of letting everyone surf at 20 meg and cutting back services/locations they dont like to, letting everyone surf at 2 meg and promoting services they like by letting them surf at 20 meg. A law really wont change anything, just the wording will change.
    Jay Kramer - Operations Manager
    Affordable Colocation and Dedicated Servers
    www.colostore.com 1-877-719-3698

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    California, USA, Earth
    Posts
    1,098
    I prefer the free-market approach to this issue.

    If ISP's started blocking content, people would switch. It's in their best interest *not* to block content.

    We're trying to attack a perceived threat here - giving the government more power is not the answer. The Internet is the most open form of free speech in existence. Look at what the government wants to do with radio and the fairness doctrine. It's about control, plain and simple. If they can get their hands on TV, Radio, Newspapers, and finally the Internet they can control what you see and hear. Net Neutrality may seem innocuous, but it's just the first step.

    We should be fighting against government control over our media, and for free-market principles that let bad businesses fail and good businesses prosper.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    318
    Federal regulators are expected to take a step forward Thursday on rules that would prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against Internet traffic.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33430848...h_and_gadgets/
    Limestone Networks - Dedicated Server Hosting
    Premium Network - 24/7/365 Support - Dual Intel Xeon Servers Now Available
    Dallas Datacenter - Fully Routed Backend Network
    http://www.limestonenetworks.com 1-877-586-0555

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Posts
    1,284
    Quote Originally Posted by pphillips View Post
    I prefer the free-market approach to this issue.

    If ISP's started blocking content, people would switch. It's in their best interest *not* to block content.

    We're trying to attack a perceived threat here - giving the government more power is not the answer. The Internet is the most open form of free speech in existence. Look at what the government wants to do with radio and the fairness doctrine. It's about control, plain and simple. If they can get their hands on TV, Radio, Newspapers, and finally the Internet they can control what you see and hear. Net Neutrality may seem innocuous, but it's just the first step.

    We should be fighting against government control over our media, and for free-market principles that let bad businesses fail and good businesses prosper.
    Sure.

    If one gas company starts charging high prices for gasoline for my car, I'm going to go to another gas company for gasoline.

    If one cell phone company starts charging high prices for text messaging, I'm going to go to another carrier.

    Hmm.. why has text messaging double since 2005 on every major carrier?

    Has it gotten more expensive for the major carrier to provide text messaging? No.

    http://universe.byu.edu/node/1163


    The whole argument about government want to control your free speech by preventing ISP from blocking your content or filtering is ridiculous.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    California, USA, Earth
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by hycloud View Post
    Sure.
    The whole argument about government want to control your free speech by preventing ISP from blocking your content or filtering is ridiculous.
    Show me an instance where government intervention in the Internet hasn't ultimately resulted in censorship. Look at Australia. Look at China.

    It starts slow and before you know it you've regulated your own freedom away. The government has a track record of making a seemingly reasonable argument, getting people to go along with it and then taking more control, more power.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Posts
    1,284
    Quote Originally Posted by pphillips View Post
    Show me an instance where government intervention in the Internet hasn't ultimately resulted in censorship. Look at Australia. Look at China.

    It starts slow and before you know it you've regulated your own freedom away. The government has a track record of making a seemingly reasonable argument, getting people to go along with it and then taking more control, more power.

    The internet was started by DARPA, the United States Department of Defense.

    Without government "intervention", maybe there wouldn't be an internet?


    Yes, it's start out slow. First we establish a US government. Then the US government regulates. Then we regulated your own freedom away.

    First our government built our highways and freeways. Then they start regulating highways and freeways. Next you know, we lose our freedom to drive.

    Government starts regulated voter fraud. Next you know we lose our freedom to vote. Companies start losing the ability to buy votes.


    Solution? Get rid of government. That's where it all starts.
    Last edited by hycloud; 10-22-2009 at 05:20 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by pphillips View Post
    Show me an instance where government intervention in the Internet hasn't ultimately resulted in censorship. Look at Australia. Look at China.
    AFAIK, "Net Neutrality" isn't about government intervention. It's supposed to just be that if they want to maintain the protections that being a neutral carrier offers, they're supposed to remain neutral about content.

    Carriers want the best of both worlds - they want to be held harmless for what their customers do, and to be able to pick and choose what their customers can do based on what's the most profitable.

    Sure, it's a bit of a stretch on the behalf of the net-neutrality folks to think that rate-limiting P2P is going to jump directly into a "tiered" internet, but no more of a stretch than people saying that denying ISPs the right to prioritize traffic is going to lead to censorship.

    If carriers can't afford people maxing out their connections, perhaps they should invest in a stronger infrastructure, or not offer such insane bandwidth to begin with (here, have 100mbps to your house, but you can only do this this and this with it!).
    I used to run the oldest commercial Mumble host.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by pphillips View Post
    We should be fighting against government control over our media, and for free-market principles that let bad businesses fail and good businesses prosper.
    Why would we let bad businesses fail in the United States? All we need to do is print more money and give it to them, that will solve all our problems. Hey, I know, we could keep the printing presses running a little more time and we can all be millionaires! Wealth, after all, doesn't come from hard work & production, it comes from the printing press!!
    ...john2k...

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    California, USA, Earth
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by john2k View Post
    Why would we let bad businesses fail in the United States? All we need to do is print more money and give it to them, that will solve all our problems. Hey, I know, we could keep the printing presses running a little more time and we can all be millionaires! Wealth, after all, doesn't come from hard work & production, it comes from the printing press!!
    I think I like you

    Common sense dictates that dramatically increasing the money supply devalues the currency through inflation. Austrian vs Keynesian economics.

    I heard someone say, why doesn't the government just give everyone a million dollars? Well, we'd be no better off. We'd immediately see the price of everything skyrocket. It would be fake wealth, just like the bubble that led to the bust we're experiencing now.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    14,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan B View Post
    Are ISP trying to limit the internet to packages similar to television?
    No, not at all. Not yet at least

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike - Limestone View Post
    I have wondered the same thing. It has never been entirely clear to me what exactly these ISPs are accused of planning.
    Competition is what makes the internet so fierce. ISPs have already started filtering packets and speed based on p2p , what's to stop them from going further?

    Quote Originally Posted by john2k View Post
    I believe the core issue with net neutrality is with ISPs being able to block or throttle torrent/P2P type traffic. They do not just want to be "neutral" and let P2P traffic run wild & congest their networks.
    That's a pretty major leap there, assuming that only p2p is affected, or that it will "congest their networks". That is not the case at all, and p2p is CERTAINLY not where it will stop.

    Think of it this way:
    Let's say you pay your company $50/month for cable internet (which is about standard). All of the sudden, Company Z comes in and offers the VERY SAME connection for $25, but the only catch is that you have to signup online. Company Z is a reputable company, but instead of being "local" based like your cable co, they're national. What's to stop your current cable provider from limiting access to Company Z's page (beit through incredibly poor speeds, or just firewalling it off)?

    Another example:
    Let's say you're on the same company, and they take kickbacks from a major corporation like Yahoo to make them the preferred search engine. Not that hard to fathom, and it's really not that hard to implement. Basically the company could regulate bandwidth going to opposing engines to the point where you find it incredibly hard to get out there and do anything, so you go to the 'preferred' search engine, where things are fine. Again, what's to stop them from doing this, as of now?

    The answer to both of those questions? Nothing. ISP's are free to do with their bandwidth and customers as they please, and eventually, they will end up doing something like both of the above examples. They've already started filtering out portions of the internet (ie: p2p, smtp), what's to stop them from doing it everywhere? THAT is the problem addressed with net neutrality
    Last edited by whmcsguru; 10-22-2009 at 07:41 PM.
    Tom Whiting, WHMCS Guru extraordinaire
    Linux problems? WHMCS Problems? Give me a shout
    Check out my WHMCS Addons

  23. #23
    *signs the petition*
    Ancient Clan
    http://hosting.ancientclan.com

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    1,307
    We need net neutrality to be put into law. Completely free markets don't give power to the consumer, only to the companies. Companies will charge what they can get away with, and if all of them charge the same and they have no competition, how is this going to help the consumer?

    But, to preserve the internet as a free (as in freedom) method of communication, we need net neutrality in law, or we will have traffic prioritisation from the ISPs, Linux-tech provided a great example of what would (or can currently) happen:

    Quote Originally Posted by linux-tech
    Think of it this way:
    Let's say you pay your company $50/month for cable internet (which is about standard). All of the sudden, Company Z comes in and offers the VERY SAME connection for $25, but the only catch is that you have to signup online. Company Z is a reputable company, but instead of being "local" based like your cable co, they're national. What's to stop your current cable provider from limiting access to Company Z's page (beit through incredibly poor speeds, or just firewalling it off)?

    Another example:
    Let's say you're on the same company, and they take kickbacks from a major corporation like Yahoo to make them the preferred search engine. Not that hard to fathom, and it's really not that hard to implement. Basically the company could regulate bandwidth going to opposing engines to the point where you find it incredibly hard to get out there and do anything, so you go to the 'preferred' search engine, where things are fine. Again, what's to stop them from doing this, as of now?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Posts
    1,284
    In most areas in the US, there are only one or two broadband providers you can choose from.

    In my area, I only can get DSL from AT&T.

    I'm still trying to figure out which stupid cable company provides service to my area so I can get cable internet instead.

    I've check: Verizon for FIOS, Charter, Time Warner, Comcast

    None are available.

    I'm stuck with AT&T for DSL. That's $40 for a 3MB/s DSL line.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Net Neutrality
    By Lord Northern in forum Web Hosting Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 05:42 AM
  2. Men Arrested in UK for using open wifi internet connection !
    By mahinder in forum Web Hosting Lounge
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 08-24-2007, 03:25 PM
  3. Net-neutrality
    By Atlantis Services in forum Web Hosting Lounge
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 03:51 AM
  4. Internet Neutrality -
    By LiquidWebPatrick in forum Web Hosting Lounge
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-16-2007, 02:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •