I'm unsure if this issue has been brought up before, but a quick search didn't bring anything up, and it never hurts to remind people anyway. A big argument that has been going on in the US particularly recently (though it affects other countries too) is the clash over "net neutrality". Net neutrality is one of the pinciples of the internet - it means that telecommunication companies can't control the speed of data or maximum data flows to certain ISPs, websites and so on. For example, if the company that owns the wires that serve Google's servers is paid a special fee by Google (or not paid by them) they can't increase the relative speed of data transfer for Google's servers in comparison to other sites (or reduce it).

However, there is a major campaign going on by some of the big telecom corporations in America at the moment, including companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T, to try to push US Congress to pass a bill allowing the companies to do exactly that - charge people to get the fastest data transfers and slow down any data to those who don't, or even block sites from being accessed entirely because they were outbid by some larger company.

This may not sound like a huge deal at first, but look at it this way - most charities are now heavily involved on the internet, but obviously since they're working off contributions they don't have money to be spending paying Comcast to allow them to get decent transfer speeds so people can actually use their sites. Smaller internet companies would also be muscled out by larger ones, where previously the internet offered a level playing field - the only difference between us and World of Warcraft is in our own hardware and connection speed, the internet itself doesn't discriminate. Though don't think your WoW subscription is going to be unharmed, if this goes through Blizzard will have to pay the huge fees too, and where do you think that money is going to come from?

Another, even more insidious effect of this is that the telecom companies can make it very difficult or even impossible for you to access the commercial sites you want - everything from electronics shopping to online banking, in favour of those companies tied to them or giving them a share of their profits. The open market of the internet, allowing you to choose who you want to give your money to, would be seriously compromised.

This is only a skim of the information available about this issue, but if you're interested in learning more and possibly helping to work against this bill (more for the Americans) I suggest you go to http://www.savetheinternet.com/ and have a read. There are many more sites about it, but that's one with quite a lot of information and links to others.

Considering that this could possibly make it harder for us to reach Lusternia and worse, make it harder for newbies to reach Lusternia, I'd like to bump this thread and tell everyone to pay attention.

... Don't bump something after 12 minutes.

It was still the first in this section, eesh. I'd vote, but I'm Engly. This reeeally sucks, though...

I'm curious as to what the other side is saying on this matter. Presumably there's more to what they profess to be their opinion than "because we need money."

Sounds like a bad thing from my end, but I'd like to know anyway.

Yep this is definitley the greed of capitalist pigdogs.....crush capitalism comrades!

On a serious note, this blows i hate big companies, hell i hope europe and australia etc make their own free internet and leave the american sites off it (except lusternia)

I'd like to add a note of scepticism to the tone. I see Lisaera's point, but I get annoyed when I read articles in the press which start to talk about 'internet rights'. As I see it, the internet and our access to it is a big privilege. I'm also sceptical about the capacity of 'impartial' organisations, no matter what they are or where they are, to regulate the whole internet.

Is the threat not a bit exaggerated? To what degree would big nasty corporations be bullying charities?

As a member of the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), I support this, and agree that everyone should check it out if they are unaware of the issue.

Also I'd recommend you check out http://www.eff.org which is a great resource of information regarding our freedoms and how they are being threatened in the digital domain, as well as what is being done to protect them and how you can help.

Please give me an opportunity to say that I'd highly recommend you check out www.eff.off?

It's good to see you take these things seriously, and don't spend your time trolling threads...

What were you banned for again?

Well I sent the petition to my State Representative and State Senators. Every little voice helps.

As far as I can see, it isn't world-shattering. When's the last time you donated to a charity online?

The rich organisations are the very people who need the internet most of all. As long as they aren't actually dropping limits which weren't in place before on, for example, charitable organisations (which I can't see happening, it would be infinitely bad press for companies in an oligopolistic market where press is important).

Looks like hype to me. Prove me wrong?

I don't even think you know what you are talking about. You need to read. I don't even think you understand what the issue is, it has very little to do with charities.

Here's a quote for you:

Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like.

* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.
* Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.
* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

End quote.

There you go, prior examples of what they are afraid of. ISP's basically want to control what you can or cannot view online. They want this control to take away your choice, so as to force you to visit websites they sponsor, rather then a competitor. Want to use expedia.com? No, you have to use our site which costs more. Want to use Amazon.com? No, use this website instead because they pay us. And so on, this is what the Net Neutrality is about. These are analogies/examples, not saying those are actual possibilities, I had to use known brand names to make a point.

Existing laws in any developed country prevent those kind of anti-competitive practices anyway. I'm waiting to be convinced of the cataclysmic problem here.

The only reason to lobby for this is because you intend to do it. If it was just hype, it wouldn't be happening. If it passes, there WILL be a tiered system, and anyone who doesn't pay up will have a crap connection.

You can say what you want about the internet being a priviledge, but think how this would work IRL. Some company charges stiff rates to other companies, and if they don't pay, they cut down trees across the roads leading to that company's store. It's complete bullshit.

With this in place, not only do you have to compete based on quality of service or product, you also have to have the resources to make sure people actually have a chance to buy your product or service. Non-profits or small businesses get shafted in favor of corporate giants.

Is it ok that Microsoft.com can be blazingly fast, while your Linux download is crawling at 2kbps, regardless of your connection speed?

Here's the simplified explanation for Amaru:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZSKsSTX-i8...et%20neutrality

And the original version that inspired it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U...et%20neutrality

...that's actually awesome. I should show my brother that.

Can't quite get past the irritating voice. But Tuek admitted on DoK that it's him, so it's pointless anyway.

Apparently nobody cares about the other side... however here it is.

Lets say comcast supplies google with net access. Lets say that google is uing 90% of comcast's resources.

Now comcast has a new technology which allows information to be better compressed, or just move faster. They ask google to pay them more money so that google has access to this new technology.

Now the lines are 90% more free, all other webistes that comcast hosts gets faster access and less down time, and google pays the brunt of the new technology R&D.

There comes a point whre sometimes its better to allow people to make money. Take for example... IRE.. but muds are suppose to be free, right?




What exactly makes you think that your current interenet connection to going to be downgraded? It is MUCH more logical that other connections are only going to be upgraded.

The internet is just about hitting its limits with all the bandwidth being used for video.

I assume video based websites would have to pay more than non video based websites. Allready, you have various tiered prices on webhosting, for security, server side scripts, reliability etc. Why is that ok, but not ok when it comes to the actual wires that send that information from computer to computer?

also, I have a funny suspicion that hackers will learn how to piggyback on the larger pipes anyway.

Charging me for the bandwidth I use, or the storage I'm taking up, that's fine. They do that now. Charging me for it, though, and then charging me again to be able to utilize a non-crippled version is crap. I'd be fine if they simply started offering slower services for lower prices, but who would buy that?

And you can't simply say they'd charge for upgrades, though. They want to make money, and by far the easiest way to do that is to throttle sites and charge to remove it, if that becomes legal.

At this point, the internet is a major part of society and the economy. It needs regulations we need regulations on phone companies, roads, and public utilities. Would it be ok if a company bought the road I drive to work, made the speed limit 15 miles an hour, and then charged me a fine when I actually tried to get to work on time?





So it's cool for people to charge $20 for a CD with maybe 9 songs on it, because you can simply pirate it? It'd be ok for gas to hit $10 a gallon, because I can siphon it out of my neighbor's car?