Reply With Quote
It will never pass, but the info is still relevant. I'm for outing stupidity irrespective of political party. Perry is horrible and now hutch with this nugget makes me ill.
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop...et-neutrality/
Six Republican senators have introduced an amendment that would block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its recently announced Net neutrality policy.
Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced the amendment to an appropriations bill. It would prevent the FCC from getting funding for any initiative to uphold Net neutrality. According to The Hill, the co-sponsors are Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
The move appears to be an attempt to pre-empt the FCC's expected new policy to ensure that Internet service providers don't discriminate between different types of information on their networks.
On Monday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave a speech in which he outlined the FCC's plan to enforce Net neutrality, a position President Barack Obama held during his campaign for president.
In recent years, concern has grown that some Internet service providers are slowing down "access to high speed Internet for things like Internet-based voice calls, video streaming, and legal file sharing (that carriers might wish to block or at least charge extra for)," writes Ian Paul at PCWorld magazine.
While Net neutrality is supported by Internet-reliant companies such as Google and Microsoft, it is opposed by major Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. Those three have come out against Genachowski's plan, ChannelWeb reports.
The part of Genachowski's plan that ISPs are most opposed to, according to PCWorld's Paul, is that it would apply to mobile carriers as well -- cellphones, Blackberries and the like. Bandwidth for wireless is not infinite, and some carriers have argued that they need to shape some traffic on their networks in order to make sure there is space available for everyone.
But, as the experience of other countries has shown, that is not necessarily the way "traffic shaping" is used. In Canada, throttling some types of traffic on the Internet -- not on wireless -- has become commonplace. It is used to slow down peer-to-peer file sharing networks.
"Broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications," Genachowski said in his speech. "Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed."
“I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading,” Sen. Hutchison said in a statement. “Even during a severe downturn, America has experienced robust investment and innovation in network performance and online content and applications. For that innovation to continue, we must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations."
A Net neutrality bill is expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives this fall.
----
Idiocy.
It will never pass, but the info is still relevant. I'm for outing stupidity irrespective of political party. Perry is horrible and now hutch with this nugget makes me ill.
Why oh why can't a bomb go off in the senate and just ing clean the earth of all those bag low-lifes? Maybe that sounds harsh, but who here would weep a tear?
I wouldn't shed a tear, but I certainly don't wish violence upon my enemies. If anything, that would make martyrs of them.
No, the best course of action is to defeat their ideas in the political arena.
This is an interesting question. Do telecom companies have the right to control traffic? At first glance, one would think yes. However, it raises issues of fairness and censorship as well. What if AT&T does not like a certain website, and chooses to block it? Do users have a right to access said website if the parent company chooses not to allow links to it?
Finally, if we allow those with higher pockets an 'express' form of the internet, will we degrade the ability of the poor to access information?
Here's an article stating some basic arguments for and against. http://www.reason.com/news/show/36708.html (Note: It seems most libertarians are against net neutrality, but some are for.)
I lean towards against, taking the libertarian view that if a company messes with their customer, they can go to a different ISP.
Then their family members will take over. That never ends up good.
That's a great point. Another, less extreme, is google putting their sponsors on the top of search results. It is a good idea but anytime govt. intervenes they create more problems than they solve.
I think the telecoms are against net neutrality on their wireless phones, but ok with it on the wires and fibers.
"intervenes they create more problems than they solve"
and we know that problems are magically solved with no intervention other than the magic, all-knowing, good-willed Magic Hand of the free market.
There's a good reason they're against net neutrality on phones. Applications such as VOIP and Video Teleconferencing require packets in real-time much moreso than email or internet packets. If you don't get your internet packets on-time, it just slows down the loading of the page. If you don't get them in time on a phone or video application, you could see stutters, miss what someone said, or drop the connection entirely if enough packets are lost. It's tjhe reason why ATM is still in use... the always-53-cell size of the packets ensures uniformity.
Most businesses set up their network so that time-critical applications have priority over other traffic.
This would make sense except for the obvious fact that EVERY ISP will be catering to businesses if this happens, leaving the common customer so low on the totem pole of priorities that we'll be lucky to have pages load at speeds barely faster than dial-up.
KBH is losing stock. She's siding with wealthy rather than individuals. Texas have had enough of it.
Next thing we'll hear is that shes proposing a Texas Trans Net Corridor Toll connection.
All that freedom sounds scary. Mommy government will keep me safe though.
I vote for a public option neutral ISP funded and managed by the goverment
If a company decides to block all p2p traffic so that it can provide average users with more bandwidth why shouldn't it be able to? Won't that create room for another ISP to come in and fill the void?
The only way that doesn't happen is if the govt. makes it illegal or cost prohibitive for others to come in and compete. But seeing as that is probably very possible given the way things operate nowadays I'm on the fence.
I'd be ok with this, if the internet was developed by private en ies. But it wasn't. Our tax dollars created the internet for the general use. We shouldn't just give regulation of it away to those who seek to maximize profit.
That would be a great option for San Antonio; Road Runner cable internet is $50-$60 a month because hardly any of the city is covered by Grande, and thus the only compe ion is AT&T (which also doesn't cover some areas). They can do whatever the they want in SA (i.e., the bandwidth caps they weren't considering anywhere else). Yet go to Los Angeles and you can get Verizon DSL for $14.95 a month, because you have tons of options if you don't like their service.I vote for a public option neutral ISP funded and managed by the goverment
Yes, but if that's the case, then another business should take advantage of that property, and spring up in order to serve those dissatisfied customers. I don't think it would be so apocaltyptic.
I say, let the ISPs prove first whether or not they would be shady without net neutrality. If they misstep to the point where it's seriously affecting the US consumer, then take another look at it.
That's not what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is that you get to use the bandwidth you paid for the way you want with no slowing down web sites or internet services that don't pay off your ISPs for special service. This still allows ISPs to degrade your bandwidth if you "overuse" your connection, meaning that the ISP can slow you down in order to make it fair to other users.
The idea is that each user (you, Google, Spurstalk, etc. are all users) pays its own ISP for bandwidth, but doesn't pay any of the other ISPs.
Medina!
So you will get yelled at for killing your baby. Who cares. Save the netz!
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet-start.htm So how did the Internet really get started? Believe it or not, it all began with a satellite.
It was 1957 when the then Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first man-made satellite. Americans were shocked by the news. The Cold War was at its peak, and the United States and the Soviet Union considered each other enemies. If the Soviet Union could launch a satellite into space, it was possible it could launch a missile at North America.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower created the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in 1958 as a direct response to Sputnik's launch. ARPA's purpose was to give the United States a technological edge over other countries. One important part of ARPA's mission was computer science.
In the 1950s, computers were enormous devices that filled entire rooms. They had a fraction of the power and processing ability you can find in a modern PC. Many computers could only read magnetic tape or punch cards, and there was no way to network computers together.
ARPA aimed to change that. It enlisted the help of the company Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) to create a computer network. The network had to connect four computers running on four different operating systems. They called the network ARPANET.Luck_The_Fakers_
Without ARPANET, the Internet wouldn't look or behave the way it does today -- it might not even exist. Although other groups were working on ways to network computers, ARPANET established the protocols used on the Internet today. Moreover, without ARPANET, it may have taken many more years before anyone tried to find ways to join regional networks together into a larger system.
...
In 1990, Tim Berners-Lee developed a system designed to simplify navigation on the Internet. In time, this system became known as the World Wide Web. It didn't take long for some people to mistakenly identify the Internet and the Web as the same thing. The Internet is a global interconnection of computer networks; the World Wide Web is a way to navigate this massive network. In sailing terms, it's like comparing an ocean to a ship.
Eh, You know, govt contractors helped NASA with the Apollo missions too. I guess they are responsible solely, all of that govtmoney is secondary.
SpursNCowboys, you kinda proved his point. ARPA was the main driver behind the creation of the internet as we know it today, and ARPA was a government funded group.
The World Wide Web is just a useful way to get around the internet, by using DNS to resolve names to IP addresses. But it'd be useless without the actual internet.
Net neutrality must exist because ISPs operate as monopolies in so many areas. Even in parts of very large cities like San Antonio, you have 1 or 2 picks. You can't just go to the compe ion if they kill off access to your favorite website.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
