Jump to content

Can the government really destroy the Internet?


Genecks
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://savetheinternet.com/

 

I've been reading some stuff on the web about congress shutting down the Internet. I don't think it's very possible. People can create their own Internet these days. To take down the Internet would mean taking down telecommunications, phone wires, satellites, etc..

 

I don't think it's possible for the government to ban the Internet.

It's possible to destroy the Internet, yes. But for someone to ban it, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they even want to?

If they do that, they are acting even worse than China which is totally dispicable. To ban everyone's free rights to use the internet is to ban everybody to speak - in a literal sense.

I mean why? Politics these days - load of crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, they are not planning on banning the internet, but instead are planning on reducing the regulation. They are planning on allowing internet service providers to charge website owners for allowing the provider's subscribers to access the website owner's websites. So, for example, if Microsoft don't pay Verizon a fee, then Verizon could ban its subscribers from visiting Microsoft sites.

 

I think doing such a thing would be market suicide for an ISP though, since everyone would go and sign up with the unrestricted ones instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forsee a pseudo- 'Jennifer Government' thing happening here. (great book for those who haven't read it.

 

 

Coorporations chose other corporations to ally themselves with, essentially creating horizontally integrated companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://savetheinternet.com/

 

I've been reading some stuff on the web about congress shutting down the Internet. I don't think it's very possible. People can create their own Internet these days. To take down the Internet would mean taking down telecommunications' date=' phone wires, satellites, etc..[/quote']

If you read the website you linked to carefuly it isn't about the government shutting down the Internet. It is about the goverenment removing some network neutrality regulations that ensure users can access the Internet based services they want without their Internet service provider interfering with that.

 

What large companies like AT&T want to do is to be able to charge content providers (e.g. your favorite websites) a fee to be able to gain preferential treatment so that their site loads faster than other sites. Or put another way without network neutrality requirements an Internet service provider could block access to Internet services (e.g. Vonage) that did not pay a seperate fee to gain access to that ISP's customer base.

 

Remember that all content providers (whether it be SFN or some other website/service) are already having to pay for access to the Internet on their end of the pipe. What ISPs want is the ability to charge content providers a fee at both ends of a pipe, kind of like having to pay a fee to get on a toll road and then charge another fee to get off the toll road.

 

Without network neutrality, small content providers may find their offerings being delivered at a very slow rate of speed or not at all because they didn't pay the user's ISP for preferential treatment.

 

The problem with this debate has been that both sides want it totally their way. The big telecom companies like AT&T want to be able to do anything they want and charge anyone they want. The network neutrality crowd want absolute neutrality. Both ways could stiffle inovation. A better solution would be a compromise that would require a certain baseline quality of service for Internet access that everyone could access evenly.

 

For instance a broadband connection might be defined as 1.5 mbps down and 300 kbps up and the consumer could access any Internet based service within this speed range without ISP bias. At the same time the ISP could offer "super broadband" capabilities above and beyond this baseline (e.g. 10 mbps down) that only subscribing content providers would have access to.

 

Since there doesn't seem to be much effort to lobby for this "third" option. I've found it necessary as a web publisher/content provider to align myself with the network neutrality crowd.

 

One way to look at size of the network neutrality issue is that the "Save the Internet" coalition consists of the following extremely diverse groups:

Gun Owners of America

American Civil Liberties Union

Christian Coalition of America

Feminist Majority

Consumers Union

MoveOn.org Civic Action

and over 700 other organizations.

 

MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition of America have even coauthored an editorial piece in the Washington Post. Anything that can bring groups all over the political spectrum into vocal agreement must be a very big issue.

 

This isn't about AT&T, TimeWarner and Verison vs. Google and Microsof. This is about AT&T and Verison trying to control the Internet services and content YOU the consumer have access to. The Internet is ripping control of the media content you have access to out of the hands of the big corporations and they are trying to reexert control by getting network neutrality policies removed and trying to block any and all efforts to create network neutrality regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little adendum to my last post. I know I read an editorial coauthored by the Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org within the last week or so, but I can't find it now (you know how fast online news articles disapear). I'll continue looking for it, but in the mean time, here is a link to and ad that MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition are planning on jointly running in the New York Times: https://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/save_the_internet.html?id=7779-3220920-BRJAvTXFv5_Xt92f4Cye5g&t=4

 

The Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org actively working hand in hand on one issue -- you know what must be really cold right now. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the political and economic activity against the Internet is making me think an individual will have to be leet to have his or her own website in the near future. Makes me think the past is becoming the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the political and economic activity against the Internet is making me think an individual will have to be leet to have his or her own website in the near future. Makes me think the past is becoming the future.

I think the thing is we have to make sure our voices are heard. AT&T, TimeWarner, Comcast, Verison, etc. are trying very hard to make this look like an issue of big companies trying to force network neutrality onto consumers and that it will hurt innovation. At the same time they are trying to claim that Google, Ebay, etc. are trying to force consumers to pay for the Internet.

 

The stupid thing about the forcing the consumer to pay argument is that of course the consumer pays and no matter, which way this whole thing goes the consumer will end up paying. Either they pay their Internet service provider for the bandwidth they want to use or they pay the content provider to access the content. If AT&T tries to extract a fee from some content provider they are going to have to pass those costs on one way or another.

 

In reality what is happening is that the big telecoms are trying to triple dip on revenue.

 

Dip #1) Telecoms charge the consumer for access to the Internet.

 

Dip #2) Telecoms charge content providers for access to the Internet (anyone who has a website knows they have some kind of web hosting fee and for really busy sites this is really expensive).

 

Dip #3) Telecoms want to charge content providers for the privilege of having their content delivered "faster" to the consumer.

 

Does anyone really believe that telecoms are going to reduce the fees they charge consumers for Internet access? No they aren't they will continue to raise their rates to consumers because there is no competition in the broadband market. I don't know about you, but my ISP is constantly raising my fees and in my case my broadband options are TimeWarner RoadRunner or much, much slower Verison DSL. What kind of choice is this?

 

The issue over network neutrality isn't about Google having to pay a fee to make sure that their search results are delivered as fast as possible, as a representative from Amazon.com said last night on the "News Hour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS, Amazon and Google can absorb the cost. Who is going to be hurt without network neutrality are the hundreds of thousands of little sites like SFN that will either see increased operating costs or see their content delivered at a snails pace (if at all) because they aren't paying for special access to a specific telecom's members.

 

Basically why the telecoms are fighting against network neutrality is because they want to consolidate control into their hands so that they can control what users have access to and thus favor their own content thereby maximizing their own revenues. Google is fighting for network neutrality because their business model depends on there being hundreds of thousands of independent websites like mine or like SFN, where consumers have almost limitless choices in destinations and they need a search engine like Google to help them find that obscure site that contains the information that most interests them.

 

The battle over network neutrality is nothing short of a battle over the soul of the Internet and the ability for all views and perspectives to have equal access. This is why the Christian Coalition, MoveOn.org, Gun Owners of America, the ACLU, and hundreds of other groups who are normally on polar opposite sides of issues are speaking with a single unified voice on this issue. This is a battle of giant monopolies trying to control your access to information and if they succeed it will be the free exchange of ideas that will lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got this email back from NY state senator Hilary Clinton...

 

Dear Mr. Kurtz:

 

 

 

Thank you for writing to share with me your concerns regarding internet neutrality. As you may know, I support net neutrality. The open architecture of the Internet has been the critical element that has made it the most revolutionary communications medium since the advent of the television.

 

 

 

Each day on the Internet, views are discussed and debated in an open forum without fear of censorship or reprisal. The Internet as we know it does not discriminate among its users. It does not decide who can enter its marketplace and it does not pick which views can be heard and which ones silenced. It is the embodiment of the fundamental democratic principles upon which our nation has thrived for hundreds of years.

 

 

 

I have always, and will continue to, strongly and unequivocally support these principles. As I have worked throughout my Senate career to make broadband access readily available throughout New York State and our nation, I believe that maintaining an open Internet coupled with more broadband access is necessary if we are to meet the promise and the potential of the Internet to disseminate ideas and information, enhance learning, education and business opportunities for all Americans and improve and uplift our citizenry.

 

 

 

We must embrace an open and non-discriminatory framework for the Internet of the 21 st century. Therefore, it is my intention to be an original cosponsor of the net neutrality legislation proposed by Senators Dorgan and Snowe to ensure that open, unimpaired and unencumbered Internet access for both its users and content providers is preserved as Congress debates the overhaul of our nation's telecommunications laws.

 

 

Thank you again for writing about this issue that is important to me and to so many of my constituents. Please be assured that I will fight any efforts that would fundamentally alter the inherently democratic structure of the Internet. Updates on this and many other important issues being discussed before the United States Senate, can be found on my website http://clinton.senate.gov.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Hillary Rodham Clinton

 

 

What do you think? Is she full of shite, or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the Democrats support network neutrality. Its the Republicans that have been against it for the most part. I am happy to say one of my Senators (Snowe) who is a Republican is a cosponsor of network neutrality, but then again both of Maine's senators tend to be independent thinkers that often vote against the party line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the Democrats support network neutrality. Its the Republicans that have been against it for the most part. I am happy to say one of my Senators (Snowe) who is a Republican is a cosponsor of network neutrality, but then again both of Maine's senators tend to be independent thinkers that often vote against the party line.

 

 

I don't understand how anyone, save for the bosses at AT&T & verizon, could support upsetting network neutrality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember a lot of the people making the rules don't use the Internet and are hardly able to use a computer. All they know is that they have built up relationships with certain lobbyists who tell them regulations stifle innovation.

 

What some people forget is something that former Republican Governor of Alaska Wally Hickel said: "free enterprise left totally free will destroy itself." He also said: "we've got freedom mixed up with business. Some proponents of free enterprise talk as if they were saying Catholism is the only true religion." – "The Wit and Wisdom of Wally Hickel", ISBN 0-9644316-0-2

 

Regardless of the business advantages of whether or not there is network neutrality, the most important factor is the impact it will have on the freedom of speech and the ability to share and exchange ideas. Network neutrality is critically important because it ensures that no corporation can control or stifle the free exchange of ideas across the Internet. This is more important than how much money various corporations could make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm... the govournment can't stop people looking up kiddie porn, terrorist sites, or spreading malware (even tho they have stated that the latter two are threats to homeland security, and the former is obviously not something they aren't trying to stop), so im not entirely convinsed that IP companies can selectively slow down certain sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm... the govournment can't stop people looking up kiddie porn, terrorist sites, or spreading malware (even tho they have stated that the latter two are threats to homeland security, and the former is obviously not something they aren't trying to stop), so im not entirely convinsed that IP companies can selectively slow down certain sites.

 

No but all traffic could be blocked or slow by default and selectively speeded up. Afterall it is easier to prioritize traffic from a select group.

 

Also, you are confusing selectivly filtering based content based on prioritizing based on source. One is hard, the other is easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could a company like Google pay off every ISP and network that people access it from? From what I understand, any ISP or company like Time Warner could say "pay up for good speed", and so a web site would have to pay off dozens of different companies that are linked to it, directly or indirectly.

 

(I may be misunderstanding this entirely)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could a company like Google pay off every ISP and network that people access it from? From what I understand' date=' any ISP or company like Time Warner could say "pay up for good speed", and so a web site would have to pay off dozens of different companies that are linked to it, directly or indirectly.

 

(I may be misunderstanding this entirely)[/quote']

 

You are understanding the problem exactly. The thing is it is only the really big ISPs like TimeWarner, Verison, AT&T, etc. that want this. The smaller ISPs including Earthlink want network neutrality, because without it, websites hosted on "non-prefered" ISPs might have problems gaining access to users on the bigger networks. It could be used as a way to drive small hosting providers out of the market. Big datacenters like RackSpace might be able to cut deals with big ISPs that cover all sites they host and then pass the cost on via their webhosting plans. Small hosting providers would have a harder time cutting deals and/or could end up having to pass on higher fees.

 

Make no mistake about it; Verison, AT&T, etc. are fighting against network neutrality because they want to consolidate control of the Internet and in the long run eliminate competition in content delivery, content production and content hosting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not 100% sure how the internet works, so sorry if this is retaurded, but couldn't people just use a proxy in a network that has payed their IP off to access a site on a network that has, thus bypassing the slowdown?

 

eg, imagine i belong to network A, and network B have payed network A the 'guaranteed fast connection' fee, and network C hasn't.

 

I want to access a site on network C. Now, if i contact this site directly, i might get slow-down as the traffic from network C --> A is deprioritised by network A. If i contact it via the poxy on network B, then, because im com'ing with a site on network B that has payed network As fee, the traffic shouldn't have got slowed down?

 

So... if your ISP is network non-neutral, then all youd have to do is wait for a site to set up a proxy, pay their fast-connection fees, then you connect to the proxy whenever you log on to the 'net, tolerate maybe a few adverts on the proxy log-on screen to pay for the service, and bobs yer uncle, network non-neutrality bypassed?

 

maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dak I believe that would work.

 

Unfortunately the Internet providers wouldn't like that too much, and any bypass network you setup they would simply ban from their fast connection speed agreement.

 

Ultimately getting back to square one.

 

Here is what I'm thinking/hoping,

 

NOTE: I'm kind of ignorant on networking myself, but trying better than not.

 

I'm thinking/hoping that websites could/would just compress all of their data, so that when you go to their website, everything is faster. Then on your recieving end, you automatically uncompress the data.

 

That of course would probably also be banned by the evil monopolist.

 

Another solution is this,

 

You end up having lets say 5X connection ability, but your ISP only lets website Y have one X of connection speed to your computer. Well, you end up connecting to website Y, and it sends you information at one X, but it also connects you to website Z, A, B, C, which also get one X of connection speed with you. Then it transfers it's information to/from those websites to your computer, using the connection of each one of those brother/sister websites, allowing you to get a higher bandwith than allowed by your ISP.

Also, if your looking at two websites at the same time, that are brother/sister websites, then they simply relay things along a larger chain of other brother/sister websites.

 

If the websites were auto-compressed, then it would reduce the amount of information needed to be sent, and at the same time, decrease the amount of information needed to be held on the server, allowing brother/sister websites to keep their server information, and other server information without having to transfer information from the server that website X is on, to the server that website Y is on, freeing up even more bandwith.

 

 

Anyways, those are just some of my ideas,

 

I believe however, no matter what loopholes you used(including mine), they would find a way to close them off, because it reality it's simply all a matter of control. If you control the media you control what the people percieve, and what they think. If you control what people percieve and what they think, then ultimately you control the people, and the people's actions, which is directly converted into power.

 

Too much power to be had.

 

And you don't actually think the corpoRAT overlords would give up an opportunity to acquire power, do you? Especially when it's at the expense of other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.