NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a bill in congress right now that will give the telecommunications industry near complete control over what you are allowed to see, read, watch, and hear on the internet depending on how much you're willing to pay.

Article (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29086)

Ridiculous, you say? Think again...

Ah.................damn! Damn, damn, damn, damn!..........DAMN!

Sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding...what exactly are they going to do?

Sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding...what exactly are they going to do?

They're going to destroy us all. *nod*

Um - Internet worldwide; congress USA.

Bad luck for those in the USA I think.

Sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding...what exactly are they going to do?

They're handing over control of the internet to the corporate world. Basically, it'll boil down to something similar to what's already happening with TV, and cell phones, the more you pay the more access you get.

They're handing over control of the internet to the corporate world. Basically, it'll boil down to something similar to what's already happening with TV, and cell phones, the more you pay the more access you get.

Pretty much inevitable.

On the plus side, there'll always be a way around it. :D

Um - Internet worldwide; congress USA.

Bad luck for those in the USA I think.

Yes, but, what happens when you aren't allowed to surf a US based website because you don't have the AT&T "Gold Package"?

They're handing over control of the internet to the corporate world. Basically, it'll boil down to something similar to what's already happening with TV, and cell phones, the more you pay the more access you get.
So will they block certain websites, or just charge more for faster connections (oooh, what a change that would be!) or what?

The thing is: How can you have control over the internet? The internet by its nature cannot be controlled. So they get control of something else - what is it?

Yes, but, what happens when you aren't allowed to surf a US based website because you don't have the AT&T "Gold Package"?

Then said website probably isn't worth visiting anyway.

...anyway, who would do that? It wouldn't be in the interest of businesses to limit their potential audience.

Nothing can control the almighty Google.
Nothing.

So will they block certain websites, or just charge more for faster connections (oooh, what a change that would be!) or what?

The thing is: How can you have control over the internet? The internet by its nature cannot be controlled. So they get control of something else - what is it?

It's probably going to start with preferential speeds for higher paying customers, but then it'll lead to site blocking based on what you pay for. It's inevitable.

Then said website probably isn't worth visiting anyway

But, shouldn't you be the one who determines that for yourself?

Yes, but, what happens when you aren't allowed to surf a US based website because you don't have the AT&T "Gold Package"?

I surf some web site that does not require such a package.

The end result is that the sites on these packages lose hits, thus they lose advertising revenue, and the sites that are not on these packages benefit.

No worries.

Disgusting.

I'm calling my Senator.

Uhm... tomorrow, maybe?

But, shouldn't you be the one who determines that for yourself?

So you read the editorial of every paper without having to pay for it? Why shouldn't the telecom companies provide restricted content if they want to? You, and I, have no right of access to this product.

I surf some web site that does not require such a package.

The end result is that the sites on these packages lose hits, thus they lose advertising revenue, and the sites that are not on these packages benefit.

No worries.

I think you're missing the point. Do you WANT to have the information that's normally available to you from the internet to be limited based on your personal budget?

Unregulated, these telecoms and cable companies will inevitably start doing anti-competitive business with each other. There will definately be problems with new businesses entering the industry along with premium prices associated to the service. When that happens its probable that the supreme court may reverse the decision. They're probably doing this to speed up the growth of the industry regarding the internet.

But, shouldn't you be the one who determines that for yourself?

Sure, but what can you do?

Anyway, my previous point stands. Any website selling something won't want to limit their audience. And any organisation trying to reach a certain audience, or run on a non-profit basis won't be a part of it. I can't think of anything left over that would be worth visiting.

So you read the editorial of every paper without having to pay for it? Why shouldn't the telecom companies provide restricted content if they want to? You, and I, have no right of access to this product.

Well, you already pay a phone bill to use your telephone as you wish, which in most cases includes internet access. On top of that you pay an ISP to provide a server for you to jump off from. Why should you have to pay yet another bill just to determine who's sites you're allowed to look at?

I think you're missing the point. Do you WANT to have the information that's normally available to you from the internet to be limited based on your personal budget?
More importantly, if you're a writer, a blogger for instance, and you say something nasty about AT&T or about some political figure they're sucking up to at the time, AT&T could decide to block your website from its users, make it impossible for them to access it. And if you're an AT&T customer, they could cancel you, and since in many places there's only one broadband provider, you'd be effectively shut out of the internet, at least at home.

As I read this, it seems as if it is up to your provider how they dole out what you can access. I would imagine that if qualcom - or whoever - started restricting access to non-qualcomm sites, people would jump out of the service pretty quickly and go with an ISP that did.

Wasn't that what did in those dial-up services originally? (like prodigy and the other one that I can't remember. I know it put AOL well behind the eightball in the US as well).

So I'm not that worried.

More importantly, if you're a writer, a blogger for instance, and you say something nasty about AT&T or about some political figure they're sucking up to at the time, AT&T could decide to block your website from its users, make it impossible for them to access it. And if you're an AT&T customer, they could cancel you, and since in many places there's only one broadband provider, you'd be effectively shut out of the internet, at least at home.

That's an interesting take on it...hmm.

As I read this, it seems as if it is up to your provider how they dole out what you can access. I would imagine that if qualcom - or whoever - started restricting access to non-qualcomm sites, people would jump out of the service pretty quickly and go with an ISP that did.

Wasn't that what did in those dial-up services originally? (like prodigy and the other one that I can't remember. I know it put AOL well behind the eightball in the US as well).

So I'm not that worried.

Well, as one of the comments on the article intoned...

How will you feel when AT&T starts charging 28 cents a minute, 8am-5pm, Mon-Fri, 22 cents a minute 5pm-11pm, Mon-Fri, and 16 cents a minute 11pm-8am Mon-Fri and 11pm Fri-5pm Sun., for access within the United States?

How will you feel when AT&T starts charging 28 cents a minute, 8am-5pm, Mon-Fri, 22 cents a minute 5pm-11pm, Mon-Fri, and 16 cents a minute 11pm-8am Mon-Fri and 11pm Fri-5pm Sun., for access within the United States?

Per minute access has been tried before also. It's what did a lot of the dinos in. AT&T can try it. If they do however, I imagine they'll be out of the game within a few months.

Per minute access has been tried before also. It's what did a lot of the dinos in. AT&T can try it. If they do however, I imagine they'll be out of the game within a few months.

Don't be so sure. There are entire counties that are only served by one company, if you want access in that location you would only have one company to go to. If that company decided to put you over a barrel, where can you go?

Well, as one of the comments on the article intoned...

How will you feel when AT&T starts charging 28 cents a minute, 8am-5pm, Mon-Fri, 22 cents a minute 5pm-11pm, Mon-Fri, and 16 cents a minute 11pm-8am Mon-Fri and 11pm Fri-5pm Sun., for access within the United States?

It won't bother me at all. I don't live in the USA, I don't use US ISPs, I don't need to access US sites. I don't even use US telecom services. As I said in my first post on this thread, the Internet is worldwide, the US congress does not control the world. This site, for example, is hosted in the UK, so for me, outside of the USA, any change in the internet access arrangements there will have absolutely no effect on my using NS.

If one or two of the ISP or telecom companies start limiting access they will simply lose business and market share. Not a result that they, or their shareholders, will like.

Nothing can control the almighty Google.
Nothing.
It's funny because Google is a corporation.

All the alarmist bullshit in the world isn’t going to make this matter.

Don't be so sure. There are entire counties that are only served by one company, if you want access in that location you would only have one company to go to. If that company decided to put you over a barrel, where can you go?
The idea is that in a situation like that, some other company would step in to fill the void. The problem with that is that in many cases, these are places where the population is so scattered that there's a monopoly by default, and there's not enough money in it to make it worth competing.

That's an interesting take on it...hmm.
I'm a writer in my other life, and I'm always looking for an audience, so I tend to look at issues that involve access in that way--how is it going to affect the way I reach an audience.

It won't bother me at all. I don't live in the USA, I don't use US ISPs, I don't need to access US sites. I don't even use US telecom services. As I said in my first post on this thread, the Internet is worldwide, the US congress does not control the world. This site, for example, is hosted in the UK, so for me, outside of the USA, any change in the internet access arrangements there will have absolutely no effect on my using NS.

If one or two of the ISP or telecom companies start limiting access they will simply lose business and market share. Not a result that they, or their shareholders, will like.

Ok, think of it this way. AT&T IS a company with its fingers in a number of pies all over the world. If you, or even your ISP refuses to pay their premium access rate, you may just stop being able to access sites like ebay, amazon, etc. Though you may live in another country, they can still restrict your access to US based sites that you may find useful.

Don't be so sure. There are entire counties that are only served by one company, if you want access in that location you would only have one company to go to. If that company decided to put you over a barrel, where can you go?

Satellite (of which there are three options available to everyone). Or cable company.

Anway the reason why DSL has stopped expanding coverage is that it is so cheap that it's not worthwhile for there to be any more players in the some markets. They just won't get any new customers. If indeed, AT&T tried such douchyness, you'd see earthlink and whatnot in your county pretty quickly.

It's also the fault of the people in the county quite often as well. How many of them bother to register with competing services requesting that DSL be arranged from their CO? Quite often not, I would imagine. So why would anyone bother to expand coverage there.

Plus, I cannot see Mr William Gates being made to feel fluffy about these your proposed pricing model.

I doubt much will change.

I doubt much will change.

Famous last words...

I sincerely hope you're right. But I seriously doubt it... SERIOUSLY!

I sincerely hope you're right. But I seriously doubt it... SERIOUSLY!
You can’t do anything to change it. It’s going to happen regardless. Best to hope nothing will change and if it does, adapt.

Ok, think of it this way. AT&T IS a company with its fingers in a number of pies all over the world. If you, or even your ISP refuses to pay their premium access rate, you may just stop being able to access sites like ebay, amazon, etc. Though you may live in another country, they can still restrict your access to US based sites that you may find useful.

And as such, competing sites based in India, the UK, Brazil etc. will provide the services that I can no longer get from ebay (which i don't use) or amazon (which is one of many options already) etc.
Basically I am saying that if the US does this, the only people to lose out will be those that live in the USA. If US dotcom companies want to continue with the markets they currently have they will simply shift to being hosted outside of the US. I cannot see amazon or ebay accepting their client base being restricted by AT&T or whoever. They would simply shift their operations to a .UK site or somewhere else. Wherever gives them the best trading conditions.

Unlike traditional services which are localized and as such restricted in their options when national monopolistic measures are imposed, the internet trading corporations are not tied down to operating from any specific location.

You can’t do anything to change it. It’s going to happen regardless. Best to hope nothing will change and if it does, adapt.

What really bothers me is that people are being so blase about handing over thier right to information to an industry that is beyond legendary for its level of anti-competitive skullduggery, and just waving it off like a child who's yelling at them while they're on the phone.

Sometimes I'm amazingly dismayed at my fellow americans.

[QUOTE=AB Again]And as such, competing sites based in India, the UK, Brazil etc. will provide the services that I can no longer get from ebay (which i don't use) or amazon (which is one of many options already) etc.
Basically I am saying that if the US does this, the only people to lose out will be those that live in the USA. If US dotcom companies want to continue with the markets they currently have they will simply shift to being hosted outside of the US. I cannot see amazon or ebay accepting their client base being restricted by AT&T or whoever. They would simply shift their operations to a .UK site or somewhere else. Wherever gives them the best trading conditions.
QUOTE]
Than how 'bout you let those of us here in the US bitch about it, instead of pointlessly chiming in that you don't care since it dosen't effect you?

Than how 'bout you let those of us here in the US bitch about it, instead of pointlessly chiming in that you don't care since it dosen't effect you?

Fine I would if the OP had not implied that the Internet was controlled by the US congress. It is not, and that is the point I was making.

What really bothers me is that people are being so blase about handing over thier right to information to an industry that is beyond legendary for its level of anti-competitive skullduggery, and just waving it off like a child who's yelling at them while they're on the phone.

Sometimes I'm amazingly dismayed at my fellow americans.

You do realize that AT&T as you understand it (the evil one that was all anticompetitive and super evil), ceased to effetively exist last year, don't you?

SBC just kept the name is all.

And as such, competing sites based in India, the UK, Brazil etc. will provide the services that I can no longer get from ebay (which i don't use) or amazon (which is one of many options already) etc.
Basically I am saying that if the US does this, the only people to lose out will be those that live in the USA. If US dotcom companies want to continue with the markets they currently have they will simply shift to being hosted outside of the US. I cannot see amazon or ebay accepting their client base being restricted by AT&T or whoever. They would simply shift their operations to a .UK site or somewhere else. Wherever gives them the best trading conditions.

Unlike traditional services which are localized and as such restricted in their options when national monopolistic measures are imposed, the internet trading corporations are not tied down to operating from any specific location.

Dude, why are you debating so heatedly? Yes, this affects americans more than it would you. So, why are you even bothering to argue? Fine, you don't use ebay or amazon, good on you. Cheers, and all that. If this action has no effect on you, why do you care to post such a long winded rebuttal?

In an even moderatly bad scenario, simply shifting to a server outside the US doesn't mean that american customers can suddenly gain access if they wanted to. And that's what I'm concerned about, since I live in the US. It's great that the UK doesn's have this problem, and truthfully I'd rather live there, but I'm stuck here and I'm afraid for the future.

There is a bill in congress right now that will give the telecommunications industry near complete control over what you are allowed to see, read, watch, and hear on the internet depending on how much you're willing to pay.

Article (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29086)

Ridiculous, you say? Think again...
This is truly an example off unabashed greed!! :D

This is truly an example off unabashed greed!! :D

Couldn't have put it better myself :D

(Seriously though, you know my name is a total mirror universe version of my real veiws by now, right??)

You do realize that AT&T as you understand it (the evil one that was all anticompetitive and super evil), ceased to effetively exist last year, don't you?

SBC just kept the name is all.
And so we've come full circle--the Baby Bells have taken the Mother back into the fold.

Those are Democrats for ya.
And Republicans are suposed to be the bad guys!

Those are Democrats for ya.
And Republicans are suposed to be the bad guys!

Well, at least a few dems stood up against this one. Even the article mentions that onle ONE repo did the same.

Couldn't have put it better myself :D

(Seriously though, you know my name is a total mirror universe version of my real veiws by now, right??)
I certainly do. I thoroughly enjoy your posts. :)

if free public forums and galleries are eliminated, i will have no reason to connect to the internet, just as i have no reason to turn on the television now. it'll just make me that much more of a hermit, and whatever value my thoughts and observations might otherwise, if any, have possessed will be lost to anyone who might otherwise have found enlightenment, or even derisive humor, in them.

either way life will go on. but i will not be pleased. and niether, i am reasonably confident, will anyone who values the very things that make us human.

=^^=
.../\...

Nothing can control the almighty Google.
Nothing.

Except the Chinese government.

Simple: they block a site because I'm not American and have not paid for a !gold package", I view the same site trawled and rehosted on a European server.

This doesn't seem to be about charging individuals, but businesses. If you want your website available to worldwide audience then you have to pay the charges otherwise you'll end up with a little or no audience outside your region

The internet backbone
http://www.accd.edu/sac/lrc/john/ibmback2.jpg
As you can see if you want to access a website outside of your region then you are likely to have to go through the USA. And if the company won't pay the fees then they're infomation wouldn't be carried and you wouldn't be able to access that site.

The US backbone isn't the be all and end all. There are alternative routes, but they have nowhere near the capacity that the is used daily.

An example of what might happen is if Jolt refused to pay the surplus charges then any NSer outside of Europe would either not be able to access these forums or experience speeds of say... maybe less than 10k/sec?

edit: on a side note this should really piss off Brazil and the EU who wanted shared ownership of the background.

edit: on a side note this should really piss off Brazil and the EU who wanted shared ownership of the background.

No, it'll simply give them a just cause to set up their own servers and host the Internet. They could quite easily undermine this new legislation within about a week if they wanted to.

I'm also disgusted with the Democrats who should have all voted against it as a matter of course (as they are the opposition). Eugh...

There is a bill in congress right now that will give the telecommunications industry near complete control over what you are allowed to see, read, watch, and hear on the internet depending on how much you're willing to pay.

Article (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29086)

Ridiculous, you say? Think again...

Uhh... I hate to point this out, but they pretty much already do have near complete control over that.

There is a bill in congress right now that will give the telecommunications industry near complete control over what you are allowed to see, read, watch, and hear on the internet depending on how much you're willing to pay.

Article (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29086)

Ridiculous, you say? Think again...
How very evil! I would much rather that the US military had complete control over the internet than big, bad private corporations who are economically accountable to the consumers!

How very evil! I would much rather that the US military had complete control over the internet than big, bad private corporations who are economically accountable to the consumers!

US military did once, when it was controlled by DARPA.

Nothing can control the almighty Google.
Nothing.
No one needs to control them, as they already do that themselves.
They had no problems collaborating with the Chinese dictatorship and censor search results, and they certainly won't hesitate a bit and censor it likewise in the US.

Uhh... I hate to point this out, but they pretty much already do have near complete control over that.
But they had regulation. Now that they won a case saying broadband isn't telephony, they are using that ruling to say all regulations imposed formerly no longer count because broadband is different and thus they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, and Congress (which is run not by elected officials, but by special interests lobbyists) is going to give it to them. We are already years behind various countries in regards to speed, accessibility, and price, expect that gap to grow like van Winkle's beard.

With corporations controlling the pipelines, not even Google, or wealthy, generous individuals (who corporations have been fighting against to prevent people from getting free broadband in major areas), will be able to save us.

Sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding...what exactly are they going to do?
I think Congress is going to turn it over to the proper people. We'll get better internet, faster if you want to pay, and less government bureacracy.

Oh, and someone will probably turn a profit from it.

There is a bill in congress right now that will give the telecommunications industry near complete control over what you are allowed to see, read, watch, and hear on the internet depending on how much you're willing to pay.

Article (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29086)

Ridiculous, you say? Think again...Bwahahahahaha, you didn't read your own article did you? The bill was to 'stop' something that hasn't happened yet. And as has been noted on /.,it was a poorly written bill that would have greatly hindered more than helped. If the companies delay results times on things like google in favor of their own search engines, or other things of that nature, they will get slapped with lawsuits like you wouldn't believe. It would be akin to a car company gaining control of the roads and limiting all other cars to a lower speed than it's cars. Blatantly illegal, although M$ is going to attempt this with Vista, DX10, and OGL. Probably fail as well.

I think Congress is going to turn it over to the proper people. We'll get better internet, faster if you want to pay, and less government bureacracy.
Or, we can tell the corporations to fuck off and get free, faster internet from wealthy, enterprising individuals who the corporations have been fighting because free internet would cut into their profits. Why would businesses or people pay Verizon or AT&T for internet when some rich guy has a few dozen helluva fast lines and radio towers and is letting businesses access the internet for a lesser fee and letting private individuals use it for free.

I'm not sure how fucking stupid one has to be to believe corporations have our best interests at heart.

Bwahahahahaha, you didn't read your own article did you? The bill was to 'stop' something that hasn't happened yet.
Say what? Can you quote the relative words that back your claim?

Bwahahahahaha, you didn't read your own article did you? The bill was to 'stop' something that hasn't happened yet.
I don't think you understand the legislative process; I think there are some old School House Rocks shows you might want to watch...

Say what? Can you quote the relative words that back your claim?
All the commitee is doing is repealing regulation. The only thing that was introduced was

Here’s the inside baseball: A couple of weeks ago, a courageous band of legislators tried to stop the madness in Subcommittee. Ed Markey, Rick Boucher, Anna Eshoo and Jay Inslee proposed some good language to protect the Internet. For their troubles, they just got four more votes, other than theirs. Just three Democrats, other than the sponsors, voted for it. Only one Republican voted for it. When we talk about special interest giveaways, this one will be at the top of the list. And we won’t have only Republicans to blame.

As for the fact that what they proposed was complete shite, I'll have to find the /. article since it was over a week ago.

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/06/0212225

And the specific Cnet article on the matter, which is just a TAD less biased than something from TPMCafe.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6058223.html?part=rss&tag=6058223&subj=news

This philosophical rift extends beyond the precise wording of the telecommunications legislation. It centers on whether broadband providers will be free to design their networks as they see fit and enjoy the latitude to prioritize certain types of traffic--such as streaming video--over others. (In an interview last week with CNET News.com, Verizon Chief Technology Officer Mark Wegleitner said prioritization is necessary to make such services economically viable.) With the proposed bill, this could not have happened, rather, no specific types of packets would have priority, which means that the net would be severely bogged down by things like Kazaa. Hell, it's already a major problem on cable services cause it sucks up the bandwidth. It didn't help that your heroic Democrats refused to compromise on the bill, which very well might have gotten it out of the subcommitee. Rather, they wanted everything their way.

Bad democrats, bad!

I'm writing a particularly vehement letter to my senator. :mad:

Can anyone give me another link that gives evidence to this Bill? I'd like more information before I go apeshit.

Can anyone give me another link that gives evidence to this Bill? I'd like more information before I go apeshit.
All the bill is currently doing is removing regulations. A couple of dems on the subcommitee wanted to put in a blanket net neutrality setup. The rest of the commitee told them to amend their proposal to a case by case basis to make sure the restrictions in question were part of malicious business practices rather than just ways to streamline net traffic or to fuck off. They chose to fuck off. Blanket restrictions on something like the net are just stupid.

All the bill is currently doing is removing regulations. A couple of dems on the subcommitee wanted to put in a blanket net neutrality setup. The rest of the commitee told them to amend their proposal to a case by case basis to make sure the restrictions in question were part of malicious business practices rather than just ways to streamline net traffic or to fuck off. They chose to fuck off. Blanket restrictions on something like the net are just stupid.

:confused:

...Meaning...? Yeah, I'm fucktarded...

All the bill is currently doing is removing regulations. A couple of dems on the subcommitee wanted to put in a blanket net neutrality setup. The rest of the commitee told them to amend their proposal to a case by case basis to make sure the restrictions in question were part of malicious business practices rather than just ways to streamline net traffic or to fuck off. They chose to fuck off. Blanket restrictions on something like the net are just stupid.

How so? Doesn't a totally neutral net appeal to you more than space to the highest bidder? I mean, how would you feel about it if George Sorros was one of the people out there determining who got preferential access?

Or, we can tell the corporations to fuck off and get free, faster internet from wealthy, enterprising individuals who the corporations have been fighting because free internet would cut into their profits. Why would businesses or people pay Verizon or AT&T for internet when some rich guy has a few dozen helluva fast lines and radio towers and is letting businesses access the internet for a lesser fee and letting private individuals use it for free.

I'm not sure how fucking stupid one has to be to believe corporations have our best interests at heart.
I don't know where the free part of this would be possible. There's a lot of infrastructure required for the internet to work the way it does. 100 Mb connections don't just grow on trees.

When it comes to producing any commodity efficiently, I'll go with a commercial enterprise every time. The government is has even fewer of our best interests at heart.

If I own the wires, I get to decide what is sent over them.

If I own the servers, I get to decide what is stored on them.

If I own the routers, I get to decide what is routed through them.

How is this a problem?

Don't you have to own something in order to give it away? Since when does the U.S. Congress own the world wide web?

What really bothers me is that people are being so blase about handing over thier right to information to an industry that is beyond legendary for its level of anti-competitive skullduggery, and just waving it off like a child who's yelling at them while they're on the phone.

Sometimes I'm amazingly dismayed at my fellow americans.
Congress (a monopoly btw) isn't better than any business. Sorry, but if they haven’t found a way to tax it, I doubt corporations will find a way to charge for it.

If I own the wires, I get to decide what is sent over them.

If I own the servers, I get to decide what is stored on them.

If I own the routers, I get to decide what is routed through them.

How is this a problem?

That's not a problem, the problem is when you own all the wires, all the servers and all the routers or at least a big part of them.

Hate This government... Hate it so damn much.

Congress (a monopoly btw) isn't better than any business. Sorry, but if they haven’t found a way to tax it, I doubt corporations will find a way to charge for it.
Without breaking the law. :)

Nothing can control the almighty Google.
Nothing.

Except China.

This is not new. Already your "corporate" spyware packages are questionable. If you talk to the vendors, you will see that the lawyers are defining spyware. If it's in the EULA then it's no longer spyware.

Don't use mcafee for spyware or security for that matter.

Read your EULAs because the vendor you think is looking out for your interests; probably isn't.....

All the bill is currently doing is removing regulations. A couple of dems on the subcommitee wanted to put in a blanket net neutrality setup. The rest of the commitee told them to amend their proposal to a case by case basis to make sure the restrictions in question were part of malicious business practices rather than just ways to streamline net traffic or to fuck off. They chose to fuck off. Blanket restrictions on something like the net are just stupid.

Facts and rational thinking have no place in these forums. Shame on you.

Don't use mcafee for spyware or security for that matter.

Why?

Nothing can control the almighty Google.
Nothing.

Except for wanting Google avalible in China...

Except for wanting Google avalible in China...

It is.

This is foolish. If the US passes this law and we are unable to access US websites, the internet's "centre of gravity" will shift elsewhere, likely more to Europe or Japan. It is self-defeating and protectionist.

This is foolish. If the US passes this law and we are unable to access US websites, the internet's "centre of gravity" will shift elsewhere, likely more to Europe or Japan. It is self-defeating and protectionist.
It wouldn't take much effort to push the main WWW hub northward to Canada, and bypass the US?

Why?

The spyware product misses a great deal of stuff. Lawyer involvement is probably the highest of all the vendors I checked out.

We tried their firewall out and found it requies a great deal of work. The better firewall was zonealarms but they got bought out so I don't know how long they will last.

The anti-virus is mediocre. Slow to respond and when ever they are in a bind; they run to Kaspersky to find out what the bugaboo is(Info from back room support on a nasty work that got through their software). The only thing they did right was the ePolicy manager. Made it easy to control many computers. However, all others are catching up on that.

It wouldn't take much effort to push the main WWW hub northward to Canada, and bypass the US?
It's not a physical hub. Canada is not populous enough. The only way I can think of such happening is if a large number of internet professionals migrated to Canada from the US.

Except China.

Damn! I was going to say that! ;)

The beauty of capitalism means you will sell anything and break any rules for a profit.

Stupid americans. Don't they realise that THE iNTERNET iS NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE UNiTED SPADES OF AMERiKA? How the hell do they think they can sell out something they do not own.

Stupid americans. Don't they realise that THE iNTERNET iS NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE UNiTED SPADES OF AMERiKA?

Hmmm Internet came from Darpanet. Guess who owns that....

Hmmm Internet came from Darpanet. Guess who owns that....
Yes. But the Internet is a worldwide network, nobody can own it.

Hmmm Internet came from Darpanet. Guess who owns that....

Al Gore?

Yes. But the Internet is a worldwide network, nobody can own it.

Well? You would have to look to IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ) Guess where they are located?

Nobody should but when business gets involved.....

Al Gore? He said he created it but as smart as he is; he forgot to copy right/patent it. ;)

Well? You would have to look to IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ) Guess where they are located?

Nobody should but when business gets involved.....
but Nobody owns the internet.

Yes, but, what happens when you aren't allowed to surf a US based website because you don't have the AT&T "Gold Package"?
Did you, perhaps, read my thread on AT&T/Patriot Act complicitude?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/07/1246259

but Nobody owns the internet.

Well you see you are arguing about a concept. What is owned in the acess points. As in Chinas case, you may do business here Google and Yahoo but you will report to us any "subversive" searches.

What's to prevent the ISPs from "offering" you packages to get access to business and info in other countries?

But they had regulation. Now that they won a case saying broadband isn't telephony, they are using that ruling to say all regulations imposed formerly no longer count because broadband is different and thus they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, and Congress (which is run not by elected officials, but by special interests lobbyists) is going to give it to them. We are already years behind various countries in regards to speed, accessibility, and price, expect that gap to grow like van Winkle's beard.

With corporations controlling the pipelines, not even Google, or wealthy, generous individuals (who corporations have been fighting against to prevent people from getting free broadband in major areas), will be able to save us.

You mean, you incorrectly beleive they were regulated. The Feds can't police the entire internet, what makes you think they ever tried?

You mean, you incorrectly beleive they were regulated. The Feds can't police the entire internet, what makes you think they ever tried?
It's not the internet they regulated. It was the lines the internet moves across.

Current legislation says no telco company shall prioritize any type of packet over anything else. This is good, because it means Verizon can't say "All packets from Verizon customers get through ASAP, and packets from other customers will first be sent to Sealand to ensure there's enough bandwidth for our Verizon packets." With the regulation in place, if they get caught doing that, they risk hefty fines and possible suspension of their right to use the lines at all.

This is also bad because it means the packets from the spam-meister advertising viagra to six million people get the same priority as your cardio-vascular specialist's video conference with your operating room.

The problem is drafting legislation that balances fixing the latter without allowing the former.

Without reading the bill in question, I don't know who's actually in the right here, but that's what the issue is actually about.