Network Neutrality

[wordsmythe]

E-mail warns about Congress' allowing Internet providers to abandon the concept of network neutrality

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

[Highwayman]

An opposing viewpoint….

"Net neutrality" is the camel's nose under the tent leading to government control of the Internet -- a line most conservatives and libertarians have refused to cross for more than a decade. The Internet has flourished thus far precisely because we've kept the government from taxing and regulating it. "Net neutrality" activists, such as the far-left MoveOn.org, are courting multiple dangers by inviting government oversight now. For one thing, technology changes overnight, but government regulations tend to respond with the all the speed of...well, the post office or the DMV.

Passing legislation to regulate the Internet is an idea whose time should never come.

Read the whole column at....

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14435

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

An opposing viewpoint….



Read the whole column at....

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14435

I don't see it that way at all...the way I see the moveon.org stance is they don't want to let companies like AT&T and Verizon pay lobbyists to get Congress(bribe) to pass laws that would allow companies(ISP's) more control of the internet. The moveon.org stance is to keep the internet as it is now without the company or government control.

[Highwayman]

Well somebody has control over what’s going on. It ain’t the government… yet.

I have one PC on a dial-up and one on DSL. The speed is different and so are the rates for access. If a faster technology comes along it would cost a higher rate for access. If I’m not downloading movies then I don’t need to pay extra for the faster service. If the government demands equal service for all then we all either pay top dollar for something that some of us don’t need or we all pay a low price for a bottom line service that some of us don’t want.

This is why socialist policies fail. There is no incentive to provide a better service if you can’t charge a premium for it. Why do you think Communist countries lag behind in development?

[Bubba]

I think you are missing the point. I have broadband internet access through Cox. Without the Nuetrality that we have today, which is what moveon.org is for, Cox could lobby (bribe) Congress into unequal access. Thus, when I go online to shop for blank dvds or cds and I go to Newegg.com, Cox could make newegg.com webpage not load properly or make the page incredibly slow because Newegg didn't pay Cox to allow their pages to function the way they were designed. But, Walmart.com payed Cox so their pages load very quickly and without problems. Or, like the example in the original post, Amazon.com vs. Barnes & Noble. Whoever pays the ISP the most gets the faster loading pages on the same broadband system.

[Detector]

Can we even have Network Neutrality seems to be a better question.

Although providers can choose to maintain certain web sites on a cached server making them quicker for their subscribers the very nature of the Internet, or more accurate web server software, does this very thing.

Next time you do a search on MSN Yahoo or Google look to the very bottom right of the links found and you should see Cached page. This link is much faster than the main link/URL underlined in blue. The reason its faster is because it has been cached to a more direct server for quick access.

This happens when a certain web site is hit a predetermined amount of times. For example a search of immigration would produce many pages with the Cached page option because it has been mark as resent and often used pages. To save bandwidth a search engine will cache these sites to a server for quicker access.

Paying for favors is nothing new to the Internet. When you install Spybot you only get protection from the spyware that isn't paying Spybot. Same with Ad-aware they only block who doesn't pay them. Thats why they are free.

[TexKan]

Oh I get it!!!!............ Like the PDR (physicians desk reference)........ drug companies pay to have thier drugs in there. Pay even more to have a picture of the drug.............. business as usual I see.............

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Bubba

I think you are missing the point. I have broadband internet access through Cox. Without the Nuetrality that we have today, which is what moveon.org is for, Cox could lobby (bribe) Congress into unequal access. Thus, when I go online to shop for blank dvds or cds and I go to Newegg.com, Cox could make newegg.com webpage not load properly or make the page incredibly slow because Newegg didn't pay Cox to allow their pages to function the way they were designed. But, Walmart.com payed Cox so their pages load very quickly and without problems. Or, like the example in the original post, Amazon.com vs. Barnes & Noble. Whoever pays the ISP the most gets the faster loading pages on the same broadband system.

You’re right to a point. Cox doesn’t have to lobby Congress for unequal access as it is now. As it stands now Cox is not prohibited from charging extra for premium service. Should this regulation pass then lobbying would be required.

Currently, federal regulations do not either explicitly allow or prohibit telecommunications companies from charging additional fees such as the ones proposed. Debate is ongoing in Congress over whether or not to enact legislation that would protect network neutrality, and how much authority federal regulators should be given to enforce neutrality principles.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/neutrality.asp

The Internet is largely unregulated. If Newegg.com creates a site that sucks big amounts of bandwidth Cox can charge them more for handling the extra load or they can charge you more. Especially if they have to upgrade their network to handle the load. Or they can do nothing and let it choke and load slowly like stuff working on the cheaper dial-up service. That’s not the same as charging extortion money to not sabotage Newegg.com as Moveon.org would have you believe.

See also….
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news...le.php/3601406

[lurker]

Here's an easy to view link for your Mother/Father/GrandMother/GrandFather:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/307

[Bubba]

Highway should view it too! It pretty much says exactly what I was trying to say.