NationStates Jolt Archive

Should telephone companies and isp's have the right to decide what we as internet users can access?

Should telephone companies and isp's have the right to decide what we as internet users can access?
No. Censorship is wrong.

No.

Should telephone companies and isp's have the right to decide what we as internet users can access?

No. That's a Government Prerogative.

No and neither should the government!

Stay off my harddrive!

No and neither should the government!

Stay off my harddrive!

totaly agree!

have just seen this though.

http://illuminationartworks.com/defendingliberty.htm

No. They get paid to provide access to a network, nothing more. It's not their job to be a nanny or the morality police.

No. They don't get paid to provide access to a network, nothing more. It's not their job to be a nanny or the morality police.

it seems to be more about money than being nanny state. though i'm sure that'll be part of their argument.

It's all about generating revenue and creating ownership where none currently exists. Internet traffic has a priority system already: first come first serve. Telecomms merely want to make it so people can pay money to cut in line.

ignorance is bliss apararently!

it is of very little suprise that when a very real and pertinent issue is raised very few people have much to say.

:headbang:

Telecomms merely want to make it so people can pay money to cut in line.

it seems there'll be greater ramifications that just "cutting in line".

Sites like this may well be a thing of the past.

ignorance is bliss apararently!

it is of very little suprise that when a very real and pertinent issue is raised very few people have much to say.

:headbang:

What is there to say? Invasion of privacy is wrong.

People should be trusted to make their own moral decisions.

Just about everyone here agrees with that.

What is there to say? Invasion of privacy is wrong.

People should be trusted to make their own moral decisions.

Just about everyone here agrees with that.


well, the thing is, it's happening. and we should at least do something to try and stop it.

Silly rabbit!

Internet pettions never solved anything.

Take a self defence course. Arm yourself as best as the law of your country allows. Wait for the revolution.

well, the thing is, it's happening. and we should at least do something to try and stop it.

Like what? Blow some shit up?

I'm up for that.

*sigh* I'm probably on the CIA's terrorist watchlist now.

Like what? Blow some shit up?

I'm up for that.

*sigh* I'm probably on the CIA's terrorist watchlist now.

It's a distinguished club, but it's a good one.

It's a distinguished club, but it's a good one.

*grins* I think even I am on that one...
I've sad so many rude things about the Shrub afterall.

No. That's a Government Prerogative.

What a lickspittle, disgusting.

Ask A Ninja (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69eCYcDcuQ)

What a lickspittle, disgusting.

Ask A Ninja (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H69eCYcDcuQ)

Why should I ask a ninja?

Authority exists. To be obeyed.

Yes they should. If they don't want certain infomation being passed through their servers then they should not be forced to do so.

I support BT's efforts to block access to child pornography sites. Currently no other British ISP does so.

If you don't like the TOS go get access from a different company.

I do believe that companies should list the sites that they block that are not illegal to access, and that at any time the company adds a website to it's blocked list then the customer should have a chance to cancel any contract without penalty.

Such protectiveness of privacy forces ISP complicty in any number of crimes. Companies should be able to be aware of what their servers are being used for, and should be able to prevent access to sites as they desire, providing of course that such action itself does not break the law (such as racial or sexual discrimination).

Greedy corporations, hands off my net!

Internet is a human right, it should be free for everyone!

Why should I ask a ninja?

Authority exists. To be obeyed.

What kind of parents reared you to have such low self esteem and such a servile nature. It's sad to see such willingness to be enslaved.

You should click on that Ninja link and learn the path of the individual.

Well, this issue is more complex than it seems. There should definitely be some protection of net neutrality, but at the same time there will need to be some pricing power in order to deliver the most advanced Internet technology. The telecoms will have to have some control over the pricing of their Internet access for the simple reason that it is very expensive to build out the fibre-optic cable networks and server systems necessary to manage the increasing amount of bandwidth demanded by websites for the purpose of transmitting music, game, and video data.

Unlike in the 1990's, the Internet is much bigger and more data is being transmitted in increasingly complex forms; the old pricing schemes are not going to work in this situation because the necessary infrastructure expansion will be much bigger and much more expensive, limiting the ability of companies to invest unless they have some guarantee of a solid ROI for their buildout.

If we don't allow some pricing power over the Internet, it will be very difficult for fibre-optic cable capacity to keep up with growing demand for bandwidth with the result that the services offered by websites will have to be curtailed and the overall utility of the Internet will be diminished. However, preservation of some net neutrality will be vital to keep the Internet the free and open system it has been since its inception as the World Wide Web in 1993. At the same time, companies will need the pricing power to provide the high-bandwidth content we demand; it's a tough balance, but one that will have to be struck in order to keep the Internet evolving and expanding.

Vetalia, the government should run the internet, and it should be fully funded, and that will result in the best service.

Internet is a human right, it should be free for everyone!

If you want free Internet, you're going to have to accept a scaled-down, primitive version with little of the options we have today. People want the ability to upload music and photos and to watch videos and play games, but they have to realize that the stuff doesn't come for free. There are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cable and computing power keeping it running, and companies need a way to recoup costs if they are going to keep up with that demand.

It isn't a bottomless well of bandwidth, it's a network of infrastructure just like power lines or pipelines.

Vetalia, the government should run the internet, and it should be fully funded, and that will result in the best service.

God, that would do more damage to Internet neutrality than anything else ever done by any corporation on the face of the Earth. Governments have proven themselves to not have our civil liberties as their first priority, and the brutal repression of Internet freedom in places like China and Cuba only shows what government control of the Internet could turn in to. That kind of power is simply too great to give to them.

Plus, the government has a tendency to turn bureaucratic and bloated. It would probably be massively over-budget and rife with incompetence and corruption given the massive cost of the system.

:rolleyes: The Constitutions makes it clear that the main purpose of government is to help people. With government running the internet, it can invest what companies make in profit to higher speed lines.

Plus, I don't believe in the modern world that internet is a privelege, it is a right, and should be free for all.:rolleyes:

God, that would do more damage to Internet neutrality than anything else ever done by any corporation on the face of the Earth. Governments have proven themselves to not have our civil liberties as their first priority, and the brutal repression of Internet freedom in places like China and Cuba only shows what government control of the Internet could turn in to. That kind of power is simply too great to give to them.

Governments have always helped people, and corporations have proven that they don't really care about people, just profits. That's the key difference here.

...for the simple reason that it is very expensive to build out the fibre-optic cable networks and server systems necessary to manage the increasing amount of bandwidth demanded by websites for the purpose of transmitting music, game, and video data.

Unlike in the 1990's, the Internet is much bigger and more data is being transmitted in increasingly complex forms; the old pricing schemes are not going to work in this situation because the necessary infrastructure expansion will be much bigger and much more expensive, limiting the ability of companies to invest unless they have some guarantee of a solid ROI for their buildout.

If we don't allow some pricing power over the Internet, it will be very difficult for fibre-optic cable capacity to keep up with growing demand for bandwidth with the result that the services offered by websites will have to be curtailed and the overall utility of the Internet will be diminished. However, preservation of some net neutrality will be vital to keep the Internet the free and open system it has been since its inception as the World Wide Web in 1993. At the same time, companies will need the pricing power to provide the high-bandwidth content we demand; it's a tough balance, but one that will have to be struck in order to keep the Internet evolving and expanding.

Close but no cigar. The fibreoptic networks currently in place will support a practically infinite amount of traffic. Wavelength division multiplexing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength_division_multiplexing) or WDM is in place which allows for all the old fibre which was laid back in the 90s to be massively upgraded. That's why there is so much dark fibre on the market and why google is after buying up so much of this unused capacity.

The only reason to compromise net neutrality is so the telcos can continue to rip everyone off when everything goes VOIP.

Close but no cigar. The fibreoptic networks currently in place will support a practically infinite amount of traffic.
Yeah, right about the same they introduce a perpetual motion machine. It will be greatly increased, but not infinite.

I don't think telcos should determine what I can or can't see. But net neutrality is not about that, anyway. It's about providing a fast lane for certain traffic.

Yeah, right about the same they introduce a perpetual motion machine. It will be greatly increased, but not infinite.

I don't think telcos should determine what I can or can't see. But net neutrality is not about that, anyway. It's about providing a fast lane for certain traffic.

No you're wrong, on both counts. Do some research before shooting your mouth off.

Yes they should. If they don't want certain infomation being passed through their servers then they should not be forced to do so.

I support BT's efforts to block access to child pornography sites. Currently no other British ISP does so.

If you don't like the TOS go get access from a different company.

I do believe that companies should list the sites that they block that are not illegal to access, and that at any time the company adds a website to it's blocked list then the customer should have a chance to cancel any contract without penalty.

Such protectiveness of privacy forces ISP complicty in any number of crimes. Companies should be able to be aware of what their servers are being used for, and should be able to prevent access to sites as they desire, providing of course that such action itself does not break the law (such as racial or sexual discrimination).
That kind of bullshit is what they will be using to justify this naziesque take over of the internet by the telecoms. The telecoms have no real interest in protecting people from illegal shit - they want to protect themselves from competition - other ISPs, up start companies trying to offer wireless internet for free, rival companies (if you think Microsoft is a big, evil monopoly, you should check out what groups like AOL Time Warner own). With the removal of net neutrality they can block streaming access to any sites they don't like, legal or not - or they can make you pay for the rights to access something today you had free yesterday.

The benefits are far outweighed by the negative consequences. If you think all of what I said is bullshit, go check out the myriad of cases where the major telecoms have prevented enterprising philanthropists from offering free, broadband wireless networks to major cities. I can send you an article from our local paper where AOL Time Warner held cable areas didn't have Fox News as a basic cable channel (direct competition to ATW owned CNN).

It's about providing a fast lane for certain traffic.
WRONG
With the exponential growth of broadband, a "fast-lane" for traffic isn't even remotely needed.

Why should I ask a ninja?

Authority exists. To be obeyed.

Authority should be questioned often and resisted as needed. To do anything else is to become a slave.

Authority should be questioned often and resisted as needed. To do anything else is to become a slave.


He is english though. They're bred for the yoke.

Thankfully this sort of development can't happen in the country I live in. It would be against the local constitution-type thingy.

Private business does not have the authority to restrict access to services & information. That privilege is reserved for the government, and even that can't excersise cencorship to the extent the US corps desire.

Anti-Trust legislation also makes it impossible for such businesses to engage in such activities.

In the most extreme circumstances, the government can force ISPs to deny users access to certain things - like child pornography - but only the government can do such a thing, via the police.

ISPs are access providers, not content providers. The minute they assume the role of content providers, they cease to be access providers & I'll be the first to sue their collective asses off.

He is english though. They're bred for the yoke.

Sadly enough, most people are.

Should telephone companies and isp's have the right to decide what we as internet users can access?

Do electric companies tell you what appliances you can and cant use?

Authority exists. To be obeyed.I'm your ultimate authority. Now go jump off a cliff.

Don't question, don't resist. Obey.


... You should've called yourself BorgMarch

He is english though. They're bred for the yoke.

I'm British, I take offense at that!

No you're wrong, on both counts. Do some research before shooting your mouth off.
Dude, do you know what infinity is? There is no such thing as "practically infinite bandwidth".

WRONG
With the exponential growth of broadband, a "fast-lane" for traffic isn't even remotely needed.
With exponential growth of bandwidth the difference between "fast" and "slow" lanes will tend towards zero. That doesn't mean that a "fast" lane won't help now.

Do electric companies tell you what appliances you can and cant use?
Actually, they kinda' do. Some appliances could be unsafe and cause damage to the grid. That's why they have to have the UL seal and whatnots. (The UL seal is in the US, don't know about other countries).

DO you know what practically means

DO you know what practically means
Yeah. I know that back in 1986 a 20Gb hard drive would have been practically infinite. Doesn't seem so infinite now, does it?

I'm British, I take offense at that!

You live in ": In dark lowland that set bad blood in viens" what can I say.

Actually, they kinda' do. Some appliances could be unsafe and cause damage to the grid. That's why they have to have the UL seal and whatnots. (The UL seal is in the US, don't know about other countries).

Damage to the grid =/= Appliance makers having to give money to the electric companies so customers canuse them.

Yeah. I know that back in 1986 a 20Gb hard drive would have been practically infinite. Doesn't seem so infinite now, does it?

Now you see it.

No. That's a Government Prerogative.

Actually, I say the company has far more business doing it than the government. If a private company wants to limit access to certain sites, that's it's business. It's also probably bad business, because only the radical religious and political groups are going to like the service. Everybody else will be like "let's find a net service that lets us see everything".

If you leave it up to the government to do, then stuff will be limited based on what the party in power thinks is good or bad. I have as many problems with Bush setting my standards as I do if it were Mrs. Clinton or Nader, regardless of which one I would vote for.

Close but no cigar. The fibreoptic networks currently in place will support a practically infinite amount of traffic. Wavelength division multiplexing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength_division_multiplexing) or WDM is in place which allows for all the old fibre which was laid back in the 90s to be massively upgraded. That's why there is so much dark fibre on the market and why google is after buying up so much of this unused capacity.

The main problem is that dark fiber is not what is needed. There is a massive amount of dark fibre for the network backbone and it will take years to even approach using it up. The main issue where pricing comes in to play is in FTTP, which is almost nonexistent in most places and requires laying cable to individual houses, an expensive (over $100 billion) and difficult task for telecoms. They are going to be forced either to raise rates significantly for customers or charge according to usage.

Damage to the grid =/= Appliance makers having to give money to the electric companies so customers canuse them.
True enough. They'd be giving the money to UL to have their product certified. And in strict terms, the certification is not totally necessary, since you can still use a non-certified product. Of course, if your house burns down they can pin it on you (or maybe the manufacturer, not sure how that would work out).

Anyway, right now the telecos are free to block or slow down content and services (the legislation that was defeated early was to prevent telecos from doing that) but customers are still free to choose another provider if one gets too draconian.

Of course, a case can be argued that telecos are acting as a syndicate and ask the government to regulate them.

Governments have always helped people, and corporations have proven that they don't really care about people, just profits. That's the key difference here.

Well... it seems to me that Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, the current US, the Middle East countries, all have problems introduced by governments. Government doesn't care about people. Government cares about power. Government is rarely efficient, or at least that's the experience in the US.

A company that has to make a profit may not care about people either, but they do have to be efficient. Which means they have to sell a product cheaply enough that people will buy (or create a monopoly on a necessary product, but monopolies don't last very well, even w/o government intervention.) Which means the people actually benefit more. There's no "let's make sure everyone has what he needs", it's everybody saying for himself or herself "I'll make sure I have what I need with my own money."

The main problem is that dark fiber is not what is needed. There is a massive amount of dark fibre for the network backbone and it will take years to even approach using it up. The main issue where pricing comes in to play is in FTTP, which is almost nonexistent in most places and requires laying cable to individual houses, an expensive (over $100 billion) and difficult task for telecoms. They are going to be forced either to raise rates significantly for customers or charge according to usage.
What fucking bullshit.
America already has "broadband" rates above numerous other countries with much less bandwidth.
And frankly, I don't know how the hell you are using the FTTP acronym.

What fucking bullshit.
America already has "broadband" rates above numerous other countries with much less bandwidth.

Not all bandwidth is the same. We have a lot of the main-line fibre from the 1990's and a glut in that capacity, but that isn't what matters because that stuff is useless unless it gets to the consumer. The US is lagging badly in FTTP technology and lacks the infrastructure to transmit increasingly large amounts of data to the end users; we are going to have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build FTTP, or else consumers will be unable to recieve the high-bandwidth services they want. The only way that is going to happen is through either higher rates for consumers or preferred pricing.

Not all bandwidth is the same. We have a lot of the main-line fibre from the 1990's and a glut in that capacity, but that isn't what matters because that stuff is useless unless it gets to the consumer. The US is lagging badly in FTTP technology and lacks the infrastructure to transmit increasingly large amounts of data to the end users; we are going to have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build FTTP, or else consumers will be unable to recieve the high-bandwidth services they want. The only way that is going to happen is through either higher rates for consumers or preferred pricing.
You obviously missed "I have no idea how the hell you are using the FTTP aconym."

And none of the crap you are talking has anything to do with net neutrality.

You obviously missed "I have no idea how the hell you are using the FTTP aconym."

Fibre to the premisis: Fibre built directly to houses/offices to supply high-bandwidth connection to customers. The US lags most of the developed world in this field, and it will take a fortune to expand our services to the level of Japan, the leader in FTTP access.

Fibre to the premisis: Fibre built directly to houses/offices to supply high-bandwidth connection to customers. The US lags most of the developed world in this field, and it will take a fortune to expand our services to the level of Japan, the leader in FTTP access.
There is no reason to run Fibre optics to singular houses.
Not to mention, Japan has a lower cost for much faster internet. You are saying it will be the opposite if done here.

And this has jack squat to do with net neutrality. Just to let you and everyone else know.

Should telephone companies and isp's have the right to decide what we as internet users can access?
No. No. No! I've posted a coupld of threads on this myself and have very strong feelings about it. It's just another effort by AT&T ( among others ) to maximize profit at the expense of both Internet users and freedom of information.

There is no reason to run Fibre optics to singular houses. Not to mention, Japan has a lower cost for much faster internet. You are saying it will be the exact opposite if done here.

Yes there is! Fibre-optic cable to the premisis is the only way to deliver the high-capacity broadband necessary for new Internet technology. Things like Internet TV, high-definition video, podcasts, blogging, uploading videos/pictures VOIP and the like all require or will require FTTP technology in order for their content to keep expanding and advancing. Priority pricing is going to be necessary for the network to manage high-bandwidth Internet content properly and to fund the network. Otherwise, the network will become congested and it will be unable to allocate bandwidth to priority customers, especially businesses, government, and police/fire services.

Japan's network was built with the help of the government. The US tried a similar thing in the 1990's, but it ended up being little more than a scam and a huge, responsibility-free tax break for the corrupt telecoms like Worldcom and Global Crossing. We lost hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue and did little more than inflate the dot-com bubble further.

Yes there is! Fibre-optic cable to the premisis is the only way to deliver the high-capacity broadband necessary for new Internet technology. Things like Internet TV, high-definition video, podcasts, blogging, uploading videos/pictures VOIP and the like all require or will require FTTP technology in order for their content to keep expanding and advancing.
There are cables plenty fast enough to do that that are not fibre optics.

Priority pricing is going to be necessary for the network to manage high-bandwidth Internet content properly and to fund the network. Otherwise, the network will become congested and it will be unable to allocate bandwidth to priority customers, especially businesses, government, and police/fire services.
Nothing to do with net neutrality.
Not to mention that is more complete and utter bullshit. But it sounds intelligent to anyone who is a dumbass, so it will be used by the telcoms along with "stop evil pornography and gay marriage websites!" ploy to get support for handing the internet over to them without a fucking fight.

There is no reason to run Fibre optics to singular houses.
Not to mention, Japan has a lower cost for much faster internet. You are saying it will be the opposite if done here.
Maybe not right now, but when TV comes through the net, HD movies are available for download from iMovies, MSN offers hi-res real-time videoconferencing, and there's a Second Life MMORSPRGSS (I've never learned the acronym) that makes your First Life look fake, there will be a need. They have to start now to plan how they're going to provide it.

And this has jack squat to do with net neutrality. Just to let you and everyone else know.
I don't know. Costs have to be covered somehow. The customers will probably only pay so much.

Maybe not right now, but when TV comes through the net, HD movies are available for download from iMovies, MSN offers hi-res real-time videoconferencing,
You realise the broadband we get right now doesn't even remotely utilize the cables you are running from your fucking modem/router to your comptuer don't you? A Cat-5e cable is capable of 100Mb/s transfer. My downstream is 700Kb/s from a good website with my cable company.
And that's completely ignoring the cables running to your house.
There is no reason to run fibre optics into a house when the internet streaming on a per house basis isn't even using up a fraction of the speed it could be.

and there's a Second Life MMORSPRGSS (I've never learned the acronym) that makes your First Life look fake, there will be a need. They have to start now to plan how they're going to provide it.
You will need a high end computer more than fibre optic cables to your house.

I don't know. Costs have to be covered somehow. The customers will probably only pay so much.
Your idea of telecom's intentions is bullshit and ignorant/naive.

There are cables plenty fast enough to do that that are not fibre optics.

Yes, but fibre-optic cable is the most useful for doing so and the cheapest. Plus, fibre-optic cable is the best way to transmit streaming video and TV and is the easiest to expand capacity with. DSL and others are limited by phone lines, but fibre-optic cable can be bundled for massive capacity expansion for less.

Nothing to do with net neutrality.
Not to mention that is more complete and utter bullshit. But it sounds intelligent to anyone who is a dumbass, so it will be used by the telcoms along with "stop evil pornography and gay marriage websites!" ploy to get support for handing the internet over to them without a fucking fight.

Well, it's true. It makes absolutely no sense that medical data, fire and police dispatches, bank transactions or tax data should recieve equal bandwidth treatment as some dumbass video on Youtube or someone's music files. If you're willing to pay more, you deserve to get better access.

Besides, telecoms can't censor content. There is not only too much competition but also too many regulatory bodies and laws against it for it to even be remotely possible. Also, they would have no incentive to; pornography is one of the most profitable sectors of the Internet and they would love to generate extra revenue from priority payments on bandwidth for high-def porn and Internet porn TV. Telecoms don't have any incentive to censor content because it is more profitable not to and always will be.

You realise the broadband we get right now doesn't even remotely utilize the cables you are running from your fucking modem/router to your comptuer don't you? A Cat-5e cable is capable of 100Mb/s transfer. My downstream is 700Kb/s from a good website with my cable company.
And that's completely ignoring the cables running to your house.
There is no reason to run fibre optics into a house when the internet streaming on a per house basis isn't even using up a fraction of the speed it could be.
You realize that broadband right now doesn't come close to the capacity of a Cat 5 cable, right? And that the technologies between Ethernet and broadband internet are very different, right? And that your internet bandwidth is being shared with your neighbors, right?

You will need a high end computer more than fibre optic cables to your house.

And as we all know, computer technology is standing still.

Your idea of net neutrality is bullshit and ignorant/naive.
Way to argue. I have no other option than to surrender to your awesome logic. You have convinced me.

The telecoms want to screw us the fuck over as much as possible to get our money. They think we are too fucking stupid to see what they are doing, and the sad part is they are right. The major telecoms are fighting VoIP because it is faster, clearer, and more efficient than basic telephones and it is free in all practicalities. They are fighting tooth and nail to stop anyone trying to offer free, broadband wireless internet in any area they are working in, from the little entrepreneurs up to big names like Google.

You realize that broadband right now doesn't come close to the capacity of a Cat 5 cable, right?
There you go then.

And that your internet bandwidth is being shared with your neighbors, right?
Isn't this only for Cable?

And as we all know, computer technology is standing still.
Your stupid sarcasm has nothing to do with the debate, and uber high speed has nothing to do with new streaming games. By the time streaming games need more bandwidth than currently available, we should have it one way or another.

There you go then.
You do realize that you just can't take the copper wire that goes into your house and replace it with Cat-5, right? And that the current wires can only carry so much?


Isn't this only for Cable?
Cable is the highest capacity carrier available right now, with speeds around twice that of DSL, including upstream. DSL upstream speeds are usually much lower than downstream.

Your stupid sarcasm has nothing to do with the debate,
On the other hand, your profanity and childish attitude has everything to do with the debate.

and uber high speed has nothing to do with new streaming games. By the time streaming games need more bandwidth than currently available, we should have it one way or another.
Yeah, how about with high capacity fiber optic cable? That's a good way to achieve it. 2-wire telephone cable doesn't have magical powers.

Calm down everyone.

Look the whole bandwidth thing is a red herring the latest DSL stuff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-high-bit-rate_Digital_Subscriber_Line_2 ) is kicking out 200Mbit over POTS, now that's a lot. I have a 2Mbit line and I watch streaming stuff on it all the time. I can't watch 100 movies at the same time.

The mobile and telecoms providers are looking at all their money just vanishing like the Dutch tulip sellers (Tulip mania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania)) or those coke whores in the music and movie business' of today. They're tring to fight it but they'll lose.