NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, yes. This only affects us poor US idiots. Please (referring to any of you outside the US) refrain from telling us about how this won't effect you.

The net neutrality amendment failed in the senate committee 11 to 11 (under Senate rules, a tie vote means the amendment failed.)

But, thank whoever may be looking over these things that Ron Wyden (the guy I voted for again and again) announced this afternoon that he has placed a "hold" on the telecommunciations legislation just passed by the Commerce Committee until clear language is included in the legislation that prevents discrimination in Internet access.

(Floor statement to follow)

Mr. President, the major telecommunications legislation reported today by the Senate Commerce Committee is badly flawed. The bill makes a number of major changes in the country's telecommunications law but there is one provision that is nothing more than a license to discriminate. Without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be forever changed for the worse.

This one provision threatens to divide the Internet into technology "haves" and "have nots." This one provision concentrates even more power in the hands of the special interests that own the pipelines to the Internet. This one provision codifies discrimination on the Internet by a handful of large telecommunications and cable providers. This one provision will allow large, special interests to saddle consumers and small businesses alike with new and discriminatory fees over and above what they already pay for Internet access. This one small provision is akin to hurling a giant wrecking ball at the Internet.

The inclusion of this provision compels me to state that I would object to a unanimous consent request to the Senate proceeding with this legislation until a provision that provides true Internet neutrality is included. . . .

The large interests have made it clear that if this bill moves forward, they will begin to discriminate. A Verizon Communications executive has called for an "end to Google's `free lunch.'" A Bell South executive has said that he wants the Internet to be turned into a "pay-for-performance marketplace." What they and other cable and phone company executives are proposing is that instead of providing equal access for everyone to the same content at the same price, they will set up sweetheart arrangements to play favorites. Without net neutrality protections, this bill is bad news for consumers and anyone who today enjoys unlimited access to all of the Net's applications, service and content.

What say you?

I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe the lack of net neutrality would stop the rampant theft of intellectual property over the internet. People should get used to paying for things rather than just using it.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe the lack of net neutrality would stop the rampant theft of intellectual property over the internet. People should get used to paying for things rather than just using it.

What are you on?!? Are you serious??? Why should the internet be a "pay for play" convenience?

This has nothing to do with file sharing. It's about big companies wanting to grow even bigger, at the expense of the availability of the internet. If someone can't pay them or actually is critical about the malpractices of these companies, they will take them off the 'net through all sorts of subversive means. That is what net neutrality has prevented mostly so far. The day it falls will be the day humanity takes a big step backwards in the evolutionary process of social thinking.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe the lack of net neutrality would stop the rampant theft of intellectual property over the internet. People should get used to paying for things rather than just using it.

*develops nervous twitch at point being proven correct*

thank you for proving my point, the world realy is full of idiots...

*continues to twitch at the horror*

I'm not from the US so it doesn't affect me:eek: *runs*

Actually, that's rarely the case...we Canadians generally like to borrow things from you...including your telecommunications companies. But I am unfamiliar with this issue...could you perhaps describe what is at stake here? Discriminatory internet access....what does that mean, and what would it look like?

I'm not from the US so it doesn't affect me:eek: *runs*

Damnit!! Didn't I just say... ;)

I'm not from the US so it doesn't affect me:eek: *runs*

...
let me rephrase that...

"the world is full of idiots...and smartasses

Well if you're going to read the one post, shouldn't you read the other? I've asked some questions...

What say you?
Can I vote for him?

I was under the impression that they'd just nuked the one that said no fast-tracking at all today. That's not the end of net neutrality, that's just the end of the dumbass bill. The right one says that fast tracks can be made for categories, but not for sources. So net-medicine could have a fast track, but one clinic couldn't get a leg up over the other.

That was dropped in exchange for this Snowe Dorgan nonsense.

Actually, that's rarely the case...we Canadians generally like to borrow things from you...including your telecommunications companies. But I am unfamiliar with this issue...could you perhaps describe what is at stake here? Discriminatory internet access....what does that mean, and what would it look like?

As far as I know from following this other places than NS. It means that Internet provider A gives Corp B a faster access at the same price than Corp C because the first corp has made a deal with them to make sure only they or only a small group of corps they belong have that much access.
They are also talking about every search costing money and better/faster costing more which would mean that those who could afford the higher prices would ALWAYS get better results and faster to boot.

I may be wrong but that is some what I saw perusing such things on house.gov and senate.gov as well as several news sites.

Sucks huh?

What say you?
i say read my latest post and start opening your eyes, before it's too late.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489481

call me delusional and paranoid as much as you want. i really don't care anymore...

my parents lived in a dictatorship... i was born months after a revolution... you are heading a corporate police state...

put it this way... every post you make here will cost you money... every thread page you read will cost you money. the more you post, the more you pay. the more you read, the more you pay. telecommunication providers will charge websites for providing them with readers. every google search will cost you money... etc. etc. etc. that's the idea...

I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe the lack of net neutrality would stop the rampant theft of intellectual property over the internet. People should get used to paying for things rather than just using it.

Actually no it wont. It has nothing to do with security.

Also people pay for using the Net. Everybody gets a monthly bill.

put it this way... every post you make here will cost you money... every thread page you read will cost you money. the more you post, the more you pay. the more you read, the more you pay. telecommunication providers will charge websites for providing them with readers. every google search will cost you money... etc. etc. etc. that's the idea...

Aye. Pretty much the worst idea ever. This shit better not get passed or England here I come! :)

Actually no it wont. It has nothing to do with security.

Also people pay for using the Net. Everybody gets a monthly bill.
yes i pay for the internet, but i don't get charged for every google search i make. a lot of websites that are run for free will just shut down, given the intention of providers to impose charges...

yes i pay for the internet, but i don't get charged for every google search i make. a lot of websites that are run for free will just shut down, given the intention of providers to impose charges...

If they could, I get the feeling that a lot of corporations would charge you for the air you breathe the moment you walk into their premises. And charge you for looking at the building too.

Gaaaahhh!!!

Oh Nooooeeessss!!!

Not Teh Intarwebs!

If they could, I get the feeling that a lot of corporations would charge you for the air you breathe the moment you walk into their premises. And charge you for looking at the building too.
You're damn right they would - that is recycled corporate air.

The problem with Congress is nearly everyone is a career Congressman - they don't know shit about shit and don't give a fuck. they barely answer to their constituents because most of them are uninformed and are kept happy by silly little pork projects. This will pass because Congress is run by lobbyists, not the voters.

Yes, yes. This only affects us poor US idiots. Please (referring to any of you outside the US) refrain from telling us about how this won't effect you.

The net neutrality amendment failed in the senate committee 11 to 11 (under Senate rules, a tie vote means the amendment failed.)

But, thank whoever may be looking over these things that Ron Wyden (the guy I voted for again and again) announced this afternoon that he has placed a "hold" on the telecommunciations legislation just passed by the Commerce Committee until clear language is included in the legislation that prevents discrimination in Internet access.

What say you?
I say, "Yayyy for Ron Wyden! May his tribe increase!" :)

I say, "Yayyy for Ron Wyden! May his tribe increase!" :)
Yeah, I take it Wyden is one of the 5 people in Congress who even know how to use the fucking internet.

If they could, I get the feeling that a lot of corporations would charge you for the air you breathe the moment you walk into their premises. And charge you for looking at the building too.
well, we're already charged for water without even walking into their premises, and water is as fundamental as air to survive...

Aye. Pretty much the worst idea ever. This shit better not get passed or England here I come! :)
well my friend, before you have to pack your bags, talk to all your friends and start shouting for your rights. much cheaper... :D

You're damn right they would - that is recycled corporate air.

The problem with Congress is nearly everyone is a career Congressman - they don't know shit about shit and don't give a fuck. they barely answer to their constituents because most of them are uninformed and are kept happy by silly little pork projects. This will pass because Congress is run by lobbyists, not the voters.
only because voters aren't taking the streets and shouting against it... they are all distracted with the war on terror...

only because voters aren't taking the streets and shouting against it... they are all distracted with the war on terror...
I doubt many of them even know how to use the internet, by which I don't just mean log on and check their email. And those that do, most of them probably don't even know about this despite the various people on the internet crying for intervention. Maybe if Penny-Arcade was like "omg, saves the internets my minions!" then something would get done as every congressional mailbox was flooded with letters and email.

I'm not from the US so it doesn't affect me:eek: *runs*
Wait for me!

Maybe if Penny-Arcade was like "omg, saves the internets my minions!" then something would get done as every congressional mailbox was flooded with letters and email.
i wonder if congressmen even check their email... they probably wouldn't even notice their mailbox was full. i would rather suggest writing to newspapers...

well, we're already charged for water without even walking into their premises, and water is as fundamental as air to survive...

That depends. Are they supplying the water to you or are they hanging around with bills and pens waiting for you to take a glass and go "Ah hah! Drinking water. That's 5 bucks!"

i wonder if congressmen even check their email... they probably wouldn't even notice their mailbox was full. i would rather suggest writing to newspapers...
Congressman don't do anything for themselves, they are all playing golf with lobbyists while their unpaide summer intern aides sort through their mail.

Congressman don't do anything for themselves, they are all playing golf with lobbyists while their unpaide summer intern aides sort through their mail.

Ahh, that's the life. :D

That depends. Are they supplying the water to you or are they hanging around with bills and pens waiting for you to take a glass and go "Ah hah! Drinking water. That's 5 bucks!"
in my country, they are supplying it but they are the government (paid with taxes). mind, i don't defend for a single second unlimited free water. i work on environmental projects and i can guarantee you that access to clean freshwater will be one of the most serious issues in a couple of decades, regardless of country. i defend free access to basic needs and heavy penalising of heavy wasters. the later should compensate for the former, from an economic point of view. i will do a thread on this issue soon.

Congressman don't do anything for themselves, they are all playing golf with lobbyists while their unpaide summer intern aides sort through their mail.
aahh golf... i wonder how long they'll be playing it for... my guess? not very long.

So the corporate interests of AT&T and Bellsouth won against the corporate interests of Google and Yahoo?

Sounds fine to me, because I want to get more service for more money...it doesn't bother me one bit because otherwise I'm not going to get the services I want when I want them. The only reason net neutrality is even a big deal is because companies like Google and Yahoo don't want to pay more even though they use more bandwidth than other users...it's not a good vs. evil struggle, just two industries trying to boost their revenue and profit margins.

So the corporate interests of AT&T and Bellsouth won against the corporate interests of Google and Yahoo?

Sounds fine to me, because I want to get more service for more money...it doesn't bother me one bit because otherwise I'm not going to get the services I want when I want them. The only reason net neutrality is even a big deal is because companies like Google and Yahoo don't want to pay more even though they use more bandwidth than other users...it's not a good vs. evil struggle, just two industries trying to boost their revenue and profit margins.
And they pay more money because their servers use more bandwidth. What the Verizon asshat was bitching about was use of pipelines - something they don't have any control over anyway. People already pay proportional to bandwidth use, these dicks want us to pay them for things they (a) don't own so have no right to charge us for and (b) want to be able to discriminate against people for not using their service. That is why they keep shutting down attempts by the likes of Google and entrepreneurs trying to offer mass wireless broadband for free.

So the corporate interests of AT&T and Bellsouth won against the corporate interests of Google and Yahoo?

Sounds fine to me, because I want to get more service for more money...it doesn't bother me one bit because otherwise I'm not going to get the services I want when I want them. The only reason net neutrality is even a big deal is because companies like Google and Yahoo don't want to pay more even though they use more bandwidth than other users...it's not a good vs. evil struggle, just two industries trying to boost their revenue and profit margins.

So, why should access to the internet turn out like cable TV did? Why shouldn't anyone who can pay their monthly bill be able to go anywhere they want to go? The people this will effect are not the big guys. It'll be the individual surfer who can't afford the "gold package", and the small businessman who can't afford "total coverage".

I liked back in the day when Congress might not know what the fuck newfangled technology was good for, but they knew letting the money grubbing corps have their way was bad for it.

I liked back in the day when Congress might not know what the fuck newfangled technology was good for, but they knew letting the money grubbing corps have their way was bad for it.

When the heck was that? Must have been before the day of corporations.

When the heck was that? Must have been before the day of corporations.
With Jackson.

With Jackson.

I don't know what Jackson would have done with computers though...

I don't know what Jackson would have done with computers though...
Bashed Indians over the head with them.

Bashed Indians over the head with them.

LOL. Then the indians use them to open their casinos 100+ years early!

So the corporate interests of AT&T and Bellsouth won against the corporate interests of Google and Yahoo?

Sounds fine to me, because I want to get more service for more money...it doesn't bother me one bit because otherwise I'm not going to get the services I want when I want them. The only reason net neutrality is even a big deal is because companies like Google and Yahoo don't want to pay more even though they use more bandwidth than other users...it's not a good vs. evil struggle, just two industries trying to boost their revenue and profit margins.

Service???? What the hell are you talking about. You are going to get slower access and pay more for it. They are simply going to throttle your access and charge you for doing that.

This is a good vs evil fight.

Google and Yahoo pay for their bandwidth. Do you have an Idea what you pay for T3 or higher connections?

This is nothing more then the ISP's trying to gouge the consumers.

I'm not from the US so it doesn't affect me:eek: *runs*

When Google starts billing you for searches, you'll stop using it.

They'll bill you because the telecoms will be soaking Google for every cent.

Service???? What the hell are you talking about. You are going to get slower access and pay more for it. They are simply going to throttle your access and charge you for doing that.

This is a good vs evil fight.


Not good vs. evil but, those who are willing to pay more and those who aren't/can't afford it. People never like it when the price of anything they buy is jacked up. Calling it 'evil' is just a silly defense mechanism.

When Google starts billing you for searches, you'll stop using it.

They'll bill you because the telecoms will be soaking Google for every cent.

Pay as you go will not work. Oracle has been trying to figure out how to charge you per transaction for years.

How are you going to measure a search? There are many steps involved. There are the keep-alive checks, etc.

The ISPs probably have some regulation stuff they want dumped and are using this crap to get it.....

Not good vs. evil but, those who are willing to pay more and those who aren't/can't afford it. People never like it when the price of anything they buy is jacked up. Calling it 'evil' is just a silly defense mechanism.

Gouging the consumer is evil simply because it eliminates the consumer.

The ISPs job is to only provide connection. Charging for content access is not their buisness.

When you get a connection you are paying for bandwidth. You can't get more then you pay as there are built in limitations.

This is nothing more then an attempt to gouge you for using the connection.

What amazes me the most is the whole "using my pipes for free" BS. How is a regular monthly bill not enough?

Actually, that's rarely the case...we Canadians generally like to borrow things from you...including your telecommunications companies. But I am unfamiliar with this issue...could you perhaps describe what is at stake here? Discriminatory internet access....what does that mean, and what would it look like?
Net neutrality is basically a bunch of regulations that the telecommunication companies in Canada don't have to follow. Yet somehow your internet hasn't imploded. I doubt that will long term be the case in the US, simply because capitalism will limit the unfairness of it. Personally I don't see that the telecoms can't charge extra for people using X amount of bandwidth as long as it was a blanket charge and not an exclusivity contract. Which I think would be illegal on the net anyway without extra reguation. That's really the only big danger when all's said and done. As long as exclusive contracts remain illegal, which I think they do, then all of the brouhaha is largely irrelevant, especially since it would only be profitable to go after the biggest players.

Can somebody please explain to me why, if my internet provider is jacking around with my bandwidth, that I can't just get another internet provider? Why is the government sticking it's nose in where it isn't wanted?

Can somebody please explain to me why, if my internet provider is jacking around with my bandwidth, that I can't just get another internet provider? Why is the government sticking it's nose in where it isn't wanted?

What if it's the only one that covers your region? What if you had to pay for internet service like it was cable TV, getting access to certain sites, and losing access to others depending on how much you pay? What if (like someone mentioned earlier) they charge search engines such large sums of money to operate that those engines are forced to charge you, the surfer, for every individual search?

Is all that ok with you?

Service???? What the hell are you talking about. You are going to get slower access and pay more for it. They are simply going to throttle your access and charge you for doing that.

You're going to get faster access, because the companies will route the traffic that pays the most fastest and will be willing to invest in better technology to improve reliability. I'll pay more for priority access; it makes no sense that everyone should be treated equally because not all traffic is of equal priority. Competitive pricing will make it easier to improve Internet security and will make Internet commerce easier

This is a good vs evil fight.

No it's not, it's two industries fighting for a bigger share of the Internet profit pie...they're all in it for the money, not for some egalitarian dream of neutrality. Google, Yahoo, and all of the others honestly couldn't give a shit about net neutrality if they didn't stand to lose money from its elimination.

Google and Yahoo pay for their bandwidth. Do you have an Idea what you pay for T3 or higher connections?

They pay, but they should pay more because they use more compared to other consumers. Charging according to use and according to priority would just be like any other product sold in the market; if Google and Yahoo feel their traffic deserves priority, they should pay more to have the access. The bandwidth needed to supply their services is rapidly approaching full capacity, and without priority pricing companies have no incentive to make the investments necessary to deliver it.

Besides, it makes no sense that the voIP communications between hospitals or bank transactions should recieve the same priority as spam or uploaded videos to YouTube.

This is nothing more then the ISP's trying to gouge the consumers.

They invested in the bandwidth and they have a right to charge what they feel is acceptable for providing their product. The telecom industry is overseen by enough government bodies to make anti-competitive actions nearly impossible.

What if it's the only one that covers your region? What if you had to pay for internet service like it was cable TV, getting access to certain sites, and losing access to others depending on how much you pay? What if (like someone mentioned earlier) they charge search engines such large sums of money to operate that those engines are forced to charge you, the surfer, for every individual search?

Search engines make their money from advertising. They would be stupid to charge on a per-search basis because it would reduce the exposure advertisers get and would drive down their core source of revenue. Internet companies have healthy enough profit margins that they would be hard-pressed to justify such a surcharge.

If a company is acting uncompetitively, people can file a complaint with a government overseer like the FCC or the DOC; the telecom industry is one of the heaviest monitored industries in the country (along with the energy sector), so it is virtually impossible that a company will be able to gouge unless the people are unwilling to file a complaint.

*snip*


Why do you put so much faith in an industry that has, in the past, done everything it possibly could to limit competition. Telecoms are legendary for their level of skullduggery.

What amazes me the most is the whole "using my pipes for free" BS. How is a regular monthly bill not enough?

Look at utility services. You pay a flat fee for the access along with an additional amount equal to the amount of gas/water/electricity you consume. In the case of bandwidth, people pay a flat fee and they are effectively able to use as much as they want for no additional cost. They are paying for access, but the actual bandwidth is free. That's what they mean by using it for free.

The supply of bandwidth is falling, but the amount of revenue generated is not large enough to justify more investment in infrastructure.

You're going to get faster access, because the companies will route the traffic that pays the most fastest and will be willing to invest in better technology to improve reliability. I'll pay more for priority access; it makes no sense that everyone should be treated equally because not all traffic is of equal priority. Competitive pricing will make it easier to improve Internet security and will make Internet commerce easier
I hate to tell you this, but faster internet already costs more money - without ISPs playing favorites and jacking with access speed and site accessibility.
This has nothing to do with internet security or internet commerce. If anything it will hamper internet commerce and security is an entirely different matter, unless of course you mean unagreed-to censorship which is the fucking problem I am arguing against.



No it's not, it's two industries fighting for a bigger share of the Internet profit pie...they're all in it for the money, not for some egalitarian dream of neutrality. Google, Yahoo, and all of the others honestly couldn't give a shit about net neutrality if they didn't stand to lose money from its elimination.
Google has offered free wireless broadband internet to the city in which it is located, big ISPs oppose because it fucks with their profits and would force more realistic pricing or shut down their money grubbing asses altogether. The telecoms want no competition because they know damn well they can't fight real competition and they know their lobbies are good enough to do whatever they want with the ignorant asses in Congress. Companies associated with the internet want net neutrality, telecoms want to eliminate competition.



They pay, but they should pay more because they use more compared to other consumers.
Price of internet is already proportional to bandwidth use.

Charging according to use and according to priority would just be like any other product sold in the market;
And it would kill the expansion of the internet.

The bandwidth needed to supply their services is rapidly approaching full capacity
Bullshit. That may be what those fucks are saying, but it is pure bullshit. There are tons of unused fibreoptic lines across the country, tons more bandwidth.

and without priority pricing companies have no incentive to make the investments necessary to deliver it.
They don't have incentive to make use of unused bandwidth because they have no challenge. If this passes, why increase bandwidth? They just got a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want.

Besides, it makes no sense that the voIP communications between hospitals or bank transactions should recieve the same priority as spam or uploaded videos to YouTube.
Telecoms are trying to shut down VoIP, that is part of this. VoIP is a threat to phone line communication and they want it shut down, or totally under their control, before it takes off.


They invested in the bandwidth and they have a right to charge what they feel is acceptable for providing their product.
Maybe you should look into stuff other than the bs the telecom lawyers are spewing. That guy bitching about "Google using [their] bandwidth? Bullshit. What Google is using is not owned theirs, it is already set up and in place. Google isn't using up anything, they just want to create urgency. They don't like Google because Google is the biggest threat to the telecom monopolies' control of internet service. The little entrepreneurs in New York or Idaho don't matter, they can be shut down by a little coaxing of the lobby to city councils, but Google is a real company with lots of money, name recognition, and ability to fight back.

The telecom industry is overseen by enough government bodies to make anti-competitive actions nearly impossible.
If this passes, that is gone. Did you even read the OP? The guy got it shut down because there were no antitrust clauses in the "telecoms can limit the internet if they feel like it" legislation.

Why do you put so much faith in an industry that has, in the past, done everything it possibly could to limit competition. Telecoms are legendary for their level of skullduggery.

Because the other alternative is a slow, stagnant Internet that will be unable to deliver the services people are increasingly demanding from Internet companies and providers. Telecoms are very strictly overseen now that the dot-com bubble is dead and their fraud has been exposed. It would be very difficult for them to gouge the consumer.

The risk is worth the benefits it will provide, because there is simply no way the bandwidth will keep up with demand unless companies can price their service according to use. The only other option is to increase rates for everyone to the same degree rather than just charging the biggest users the most; an across-the-board rate increase offers a lot more opportunities for gouging than a tiered pricing model because it's harder to detect.

Price of internet is already proportional to bandwidth use.

No it's not

The price of the internet, currently, is proportional to the size of your access pipe. That's all. It has nothing to do with the amount of bandwidth you actually use.

I hate to tell you this, but faster internet already costs more money - without ISPs playing favorites and jacking with access speed and site accessibility. This has nothing to do with internet security or internet commerce. If anything it will hamper internet commerce and security is an entirely different matter, unless of course you mean unagreed-to censorship which is the fucking problem I am arguing against.

It's still paying for access, not usage. You're getting a faster connection, but you are still allowed to use unlimited amounts of bandwidth for a flat fee; the telecoms want to charge according to use, not just a flat fee for unlimited access.


Google has offered free wireless broadband internet to the city in which it is located, big ISPs oppose because it fucks with their profits and would force more realistic pricing or shut down their money grubbing asses altogether. The telecoms want no competition because they know damn well they can't fight real competition and they know their lobbies are good enough to do whatever they want with the ignorant asses in Congress. Companies associated with the internet want net neutrality, telecoms want to eliminate competition.

Google wants revenue. Setting up free wireless access means more people will have Internet access, and when they hear it is Google that is providing it they will choose them as their search engine, meaning more revenue from advertising. ISPs oppose it because that's cutting in to their market, and


Price of internet is already proportional to bandwidth use.

Only the connection speed. Beyond that, the actual amount consumed is limitless. It's like a gas line being set up to deliver a certain quantitiy of gas but there is no additional charge for use; you pay the fee for the size of delivery and for access to the pipeline, but the actual gas consumed has no usage fee.

And it would kill the expansion of the internet.

Most countries have no Internet neutrality provision, and they seem to be doing just fine expanding it. Plus, priority pricing would mean faster and more secure access for business and consumer transactions which would make Internet commerce grow faster. Net neutrality means Internet crime is routed at the same priority as legal transactions; if Internet commerce is prioritized, it is less vulnerable.

Bullshit. That may be what those fucks are saying, but it is pure bullshit. There are tons of unused fibreoptic lines across the country, tons more bandwidth.

It's not where it needs to be. The problem is getting it to the households, not sending it along trunk lines; the high-bandwidth Internet services require connections and infrastructure to be built nearer and often on the premises of houses and businesses, and that costs a lot of money. That won't be a profitable investment unless companies can charge according to use.

They don't have incentive to make use of unused bandwidth because they have no challenge. If this passes, why increase bandwidth? They just got a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want.


Telecoms are trying to shut down VoIP, that is part of this. VoIP is a threat to phone line communication and they want it shut down, or totally under their control, before it takes off.

It's competition. There's no reason why VoIP deserves special protection from the government in a free market; in that case, net neutrality is nothing more than a subsidy to the VoIP companies at the expense of the telecoms. If VoIP providers can compete against telecoms, they should be able to survive regardless of the price for their services. If they can't, then telecoms have full right to buy them and provide the service themselves.


Maybe you should look into stuff other than the bs the telecom lawyers are spewing. That guy bitching about "Google using [their] bandwidth? Bullshit. What Google is using is not owned theirs, it is already set up and in place. Google isn't using up anything, they just want to create urgency. They don't like Google because Google is the biggest threat to the telecom monopolies' control of internet service. The little entrepreneurs in New York or Idaho don't matter, they can be shut down by a little coaxing of the lobby to city councils, but Google is a real company with lots of money, name recognition, and ability to fight back.

Bandwidth belongs to telecoms who build and maintain the networks that Google uses. Internet companies buy the service and are free to use as much as they want for no additional cost beyond the access fee; Google is a major user of bandwidth, so telecoms want to make more money off of providing Google with the access. If Internet companies don't like it, they should invest the money and build their own networks rather than try and force companies to bend to their will.

Google wants net neutrality because it gives them special protection and forcibly reduces their costs at the expense of the telecoms; it's nothing more than a profit drive than anything else.

If this passes, that is gone. Did you even read the OP? The guy got it shut down because there were no antitrust clauses in the "telecoms can limit the internet if they feel like it" legislation.

Well, that's a failure of legislation that has nothing to do with net neutrality. Telecoms could limit the Internet now if they wanted to simply by darkening more fiber and raising rates for everyone...net neutrality is no protection against lawbreaking, just a tool for Internet companies to profit.

What if it's the only one that covers your region? What if you had to pay for internet service like it was cable TV, getting access to certain sites, and losing access to others depending on how much you pay? What if (like someone mentioned earlier) they charge search engines such large sums of money to operate that those engines are forced to charge you, the surfer, for every individual search?

Is all that ok with you?

No ISP would be that stupid. If they made Google, for example, charge for searching, a new website that didn't charge would pop-up. Google would never agree to that. There are hundreds of broadband providers out there, and thousands of dial-up providers. None of them are going to have any kind of monopoly power anytime soon. The idea is more absurd than your grocery store selling you crummy or expensive food because it knows you would starve without food.

No it's not

The price of the internet, currently, is proportional to the size of your access pipe. That's all. It has nothing to do with the amount of bandwidth you actually use.
I can assure you that something like Penny-Arcade pays alot more per month than some one like the Knights of Nothing guild website.

What say you?

Paying for the internet?! Are they crazy?! I smell lobbyism. :sniper: :gundge:

It's still paying for access, not usage. You're getting a faster connection, but you are still allowed to use unlimited amounts of bandwidth for a flat fee; the telecoms want to charge according to use, not just a flat fee for unlimited access.
Oh look, a terrible idea! So people who already have high traffic sites and have to pay more money for them, would have to pay even more money because they get lots of traffic. Circular logic, away!



Google wants revenue. Setting up free wireless access means more people will have Internet access, and when they hear it is Google that is providing it they will choose them as their search engine, meaning more revenue from advertising. ISPs oppose it because that's cutting in to their market, and
No shit. It's still free internet for personal use as opposed to ISPs who charge much more per kb than other countries. If ISPs had reasonable price schemes, they wouldn't care who was cutting into their market, but they don't.


Only the connection speed. Beyond that, the actual amount consumed is limitless. It's like a gas line being set up to deliver a certain quantitiy of gas but there is no additional charge for use; you pay the fee for the size of delivery and for access to the pipeline, but the actual gas consumed has no usage fee.
Bad comparison. Gas is a disposable commodity. Once it is used, you need more delivered. Information transfer can be used, unused, or shared to increase the speed. Bit torrent anyone? Thus bandwidth usage is not disposable and is variable.



Most countries have no Internet neutrality provision,
And they have (a) government support for ISPs thus cheaper, faster internet and (b) stronger government antitrust regulation than the US.

Plus, priority pricing would mean faster and more secure access for business and consumer transactions which would make Internet commerce grow faster.
Bullshit. Businesses already pay more for a faster access line. This would do nothing but hurt the average person by allowing telecom monopolies to prevent competition.

Net neutrality means Internet crime is routed at the same priority as legal transactions; if Internet commerce is prioritized, it is less vulnerable.
What the fuck are you talking about? Priority access to internet information has nothing to do with information protection.


It's not where it needs to be. The problem is getting it to the households, not sending it along trunk lines; the high-bandwidth Internet services require connections and infrastructure to be built nearer and often on the premises of houses and businesses, and that costs a lot of money. That won't be a profitable investment unless companies can charge according to use.
Business already have faster lines. Homes need routing to individual neighborhoods. If a line was sent to a router in an individual neighborhood then the cost was split amongst the homes it serviced, it would more than likely be (a) far faster than split cable or DSL lines; (b) far cheaper for individuals and (c) cheaper for telecoms.
The problem is they won't charge according to use solely, they will use the ability to filter the internet to hurt competition and stop internet growth by killing gaming, bit torrent, and other likewise more bandwidth intensive endeavors. Not to mention the prices they would charge would be exhorbent.



It's competition. There's no reason why VoIP deserves special protection from the government in a free market;
Then there is no reason the telecoms need protection from the government with this net neutrality crap. They put up or shut up and stop getting government protection from being legacy corps.

If they can't, then telecoms have full right to buy them and provide the service themselves.
Telecoms have no intention of providing the service themselves, they just want to shut down the competition. It has been seen time and again.


Bandwidth belongs to telecoms who build and maintain the networks that Google uses. Internet companies buy the service and are free to use as much as they want for no additional cost beyond the access fee; Google is a major user of bandwidth, so telecoms want to make more money off of providing Google with the access. If Internet companies don't like it, they should invest the money and build their own networks rather than try and force companies to bend to their will.
Google already pays plenty of money for enough servers and enough bandwidth to keep running.

Google wants net neutrality because it gives them special protection and forcibly reduces their costs at the expense of the telecoms; it's nothing more than a profit drive than anything else.
Again you imply the end of net neutrality is protection for telecoms. Net Neutrality protects no one and everyone. If you can't get it through your thick skull that telecoms arn't goody two-shoes companies that want to help the common internet user, this is a pointless argument. Google is competition. The telecoms have no intention of competing because they can't. So they are going to get it shut down.


Well, that's a failure of legislation that has nothing to do with net neutrality. Telecoms could limit the Internet now if they wanted to simply by darkening more fiber and raising rates for everyone...net neutrality is no protection against lawbreaking, just a tool for Internet companies to profit.
It has everything to do with net neutrality because that is the entire point.

What say you?

Paying for certain pages? Are they crazy?! I smell lobbyism. :sniper: :gundge:

Of course, I forgot that Congress was run by lobbyists. My bad. :upyours:

It's still paying for access, not usage.

Access is usage! You can't pay for DSL access and get T1 throughput.


You're getting a faster connection, but you are still allowed to use unlimited amounts of bandwidth for a flat fee; the telecoms want to charge according to use, not just a flat fee for unlimited access.


Bullshit. You have a one time connection fee that takes care of the access. Your monthly fee covers the usage.

You are NOT going to get faster access.

Again do you know what the monthly rates of T3 or higher? Now add mulitple pipes. The ISPs make but loads of money off Google.


Google wants revenue. Setting up free wireless access means more people will have Internet access, and when they hear it is Google that is providing it they will choose them as their search engine, meaning more revenue from advertising. ISPs oppose it because that's cutting in to their market, and

Free doesn't make it available everywhere.

Free doesn't mean it will have fast throughput.


Only the connection speed. Beyond that, the actual amount consumed is limitless.

And you are paying for that "limitless" consumption. The wire isn't downloading 24/7.


It's like a gas line being set up to deliver a certain quantitiy of gas but there is no additional charge for use; you pay the fee for the size of delivery and for access to the pipeline, but the actual gas consumed has no usage fee.

Bullshit.

The Net is like a freeway. Shall we start charging people for the distance they drive on the freeway.

We already pay taxes for road maintenance etc. The ISPs basically want you to pay for driving on the freeway.


Most countries have no Internet neutrality provision, and they seem to be doing just fine expanding it.


Most coutries don't have a pay as you go business practice.


Plus, priority pricing would mean faster and more secure access for business and consumer transactions which would make Internet commerce grow faster.

Not when the consumer is paying for each search.


Net neutrality means Internet crime is routed at the same priority as legal transactions; if Internet commerce is prioritized, it is less vulnerable.


What? Crime is still crime. You think the FBI is going to stop researching fraud because of net neutrality? Kiddy porn is going to increase because of Net Neutrality?

Internet crime is not paying for high speed access.


It's not where it needs to be. The problem is getting it to the households, not sending it along trunk lines; the high-bandwidth Internet services require connections and infrastructure to be built nearer and often on the premises of houses and businesses, and that costs a lot of money.

Depends on where you are and it's not as hard and costly as you think. Fiber can use the same piping that electrical conduits run. Many cases old telco cable is pulled and replaced with fiber.

The intial cost is high for a first time install especially if they have to trench a tunnel. However, most of the cost is the intial tunnel and the fiber runs. After that its free money.


That won't be a profitable investment unless companies can charge according to use.

Please. Then why haven't they gone out of business already? They are making money just fine.

Especially when you consider the fact that DSL USES EXISTING LINES ALREADY!


It's competition. There's no reason why VoIP deserves special protection from the government in a free market;


It's not a free market if the telcos are banding together to prevent it or make it too costly.


in that case, net neutrality is nothing more than a subsidy to the VoIP companies at the expense of the telecoms. If VoIP providers can compete against telecoms, they should be able to survive regardless of the price for their services. If they can't, then telecoms have full right to buy them and provide the service themselves.


So why do the telcos diserve protection from VoIP?

They aren't competing when they align against VoIP.


Bandwidth belongs to telecoms who build and maintain the networks that Google uses.


You make it sound like Google has unlimited bandwidth. They don't.

You make is sound like access is the same be it the bandwidth is 20%-100% It's not.

You would notice it if Googles pipes were pushing the 90% usage rate.



Internet companies buy the service and are free to use as much as they want for no additional cost beyond the access fee;

And the ISPs charge them a great deal of money for highspeed access.

Google is a major user of bandwidth, so telecoms want to make more money off of providing Google with the access. If Internet companies don't like it, they should invest the money and build their own networks rather than try and force companies to bend to their will.

Do you know what a T3 or better costs? Do you know what a QOS costs?


Google wants net neutrality because it gives them special protection and forcibly reduces their costs at the expense of the telecoms; it's nothing more than a profit drive than anything else.

Nope. The ISPs get their monthly fees and now they want to charge you for using the connection.

Well, that's a failure of legislation that has nothing to do with net neutrality. Telecoms could limit the Internet now if they wanted to simply by darkening more fiber and raising rates for everyone...net neutrality is no protection against lawbreaking, just a tool for Internet companies to profit.

Actually no they can't. The infrastructure is shared. You darken one thing and you hit many.

They already raise rates every year.

Net Neutrality is a good thing.

The Net exploded just fine without usage fees.

Why do you put so much faith in an industry that has, in the past, done everything it possibly could to limit competition. Telecoms are legendary for their level of skullduggery.

Didn't you get the memo? Businessmen never do anything unethical.

Look at utility services. You pay a flat fee for the access along with an additional amount equal to the amount of gas/water/electricity you consume.


Again a poor analogy. Gas and water have production costs to get it and get it delivered. Never mind the fact they are not a limitless resource.


In the case of bandwidth, people pay a flat fee and they are effectively able to use as much as they want for no additional cost.

And your delivery system limits your consumption. Again DSL vs high speed.

There is only so much data I can download.


The supply of bandwidth is falling, but the amount of revenue generated is not large enough to justify more investment in infrastructure.

No it's not.

Investment in infrastructure has been an ongoing process from day one. Everytime a company upgrades, they pass the cost onto the consumers.

Because the other alternative is a slow, stagnant Internet that will be unable to deliver the services people are increasingly demanding from Internet companies and providers.

Bullshit. The consumer will have to pay for looking for a product. Researching if a product is what they need. Pay for the process of paying for the product. Pay for the product. Pay for looking where the product is in the delivery process.

Hmm Amazon and ebay. How many people are going to take the time to write up reviews of vendors if they have to pay to do that?


Telecoms are very strictly overseen now that the dot-com bubble is dead and their fraud has been exposed. It would be very difficult for them to gouge the consumer.

Pay as you go is gouging the consumer.

The risk is worth the benefits it will provide, because there is simply no way the bandwidth will keep up with demand unless companies can price their service according to use.


Bullshit. Equipment costs are one time and you get to write them off over time. The amount of customers that use one switch more then pay for it with their monthly costs. The wire cost is one time and you only have to go back for damage.

The only other option is to increase rates for everyone to the same degree rather than just charging the biggest users the most; an across-the-board rate increase offers a lot more opportunities for gouging than a tiered pricing model because it's harder to detect.

:rolleyes:

There is ALREADY a tiered pricing model. Not everybody can afford T1s and T3s.

No it's not

The price of the internet, currently, is proportional to the size of your access pipe. That's all. It has nothing to do with the amount of bandwidth you actually use.

Your connection speed limits what you can do with your pipe. Try running an online game with several 1000 people. It won't last long.

This has nothing to do with file sharing. It's about big companies wanting to grow even bigger, at the expense of the availability of the internet. If someone can't pay them or actually is critical about the malpractices of these companies, they will take them off the 'net through all sorts of subversive means. That is what net neutrality has prevented mostly so far. The day it falls will be the day humanity takes a big step backwards in the evolutionary process of social thinking.

Well, I guess that means there'll be a bigger share of the market for countries that have a more liberal policy on internet access. We are discussing this on a UK forum afterall.

BTW, I think that the loss of net neutrality would be a terrible thing for the US, but there's places for the rest of us to go from there.

How would the telecoms do this? Stack it on the monthly fee? Probably. Thus you are paying for access to the line at an estimated, expected average level of bandwidth. Then they would stack on top of that what? A dollar per MB downloaded or uploaded? Allotted monthly bandwidth limits that you will have to pay more for if you exceed them? Oh wait, there are already companies with that policy. I am glad my ISP doesn't pull shit like that, if they did they would be dead because they are a local start up company only servicing a few states. The big telecoms can pull this kind of bullshit because they are big telecoms and now they want permission to pull even more shit.

How would the telecoms do this? Stack it on the monthly fee? Probably. Thus you are paying for access to the line at an estimated, expected average level of bandwidth. Then they would stack on top of that what? A dollar per MB downloaded or uploaded? Allotted monthly bandwidth limits that you will have to pay more for if you exceed them? Oh wait, there are already companies with that policy. I am glad my ISP doesn't pull shit like that, if they did they would be dead because they are a local start up company only servicing a few states. The big telecoms can pull this kind of bullshit because they are big telecoms and now they want permission to pull even more shit.

They can measure your throughput. I get a daily chart that shows my hourly usage.

My guess, they will have a tiered structure by percentage.

They can measure your through put. I get a daily charge that shows my hourly usage.

My guess, they will have a tiered structure by percentage.
I'm glad my cable company has no monthly cap or hourly structure. If so, I would be paying out the ass. One month I could download GBs of stuff in a few days time then barely even game for the next few months so the only thing coming through is webpages or im text.

Perhaps a charge for bandwidth usage would be fair, but that isn't what this is about - telecoms don't need government permission to charge people per MB, they could do that if they wanted and no one in the gov would give a shit. This would give them a blank check to do whatever they want up to and including capping bandwidth to sites they don't approve of, or the government doesn't approve of and preventing competitors from getting to subscribers. It would decrease competition, decrease service and functionality, and raise prices. Just when they were going down because of more competition and better technology.

I'm glad my cable company has no monthly cap or hourly structure. If so, I would be paying out the ass. One month I could download GBs of stuff in a few days time then barely even game for the next few months so the only thing coming through is webpages or im text.

Perhaps a charge for bandwidth usage would be fair, but that isn't what this is about - telecoms don't need government permission to charge people per MB, they could do that if they wanted and no one in the gov would give a shit.

Ok I agree.

One passing thought: they are after is for us to have plans like cell phones. Ohhhh you want to use your DSL after 8 PM??? That's prime rate hours! Don't worry you can save at 1am - 6 am.

Ok I agree.

What I think they are after is for us to have plans like cell phones. Ohhhh you want to use your DSL after 8 PM??? That's prime rate hours! Don't worry you can save at 1am - 6 am.
Exactly, they would make you pay more if you want bandwidth that is already available to you and capping bandwidth for people not paying the special rate. Turning the internet into trash.

I wouldn't put it past them to use this to shut down anyone they disagree with one wya or another. And probably filter sites and report to the government what you are doing. They could filter the sites on an ad hoc basis and you would never know because you would get Error 404 or whatever it is when a page can't be displayed.

Bullshit. The consumer will have to pay for looking for a product. Researching if a product is what they need. Pay for the process of paying for the product. Pay for the product. Pay for looking where the product is in the delivery process.

You're doing that anyway when you pay a monthly fee for Internet access.
It's just a flat fee that you pay instead of according to usage. If you only use the Internet 50 hours a month, you pay the same amount as a person who uses it 500 hours per month. You're giving a discount to the people who use it the most at the expense of those who use it the least. Regressive pricing makes absolutely no sense in any other industry, so why should it in Internet access?

Hmm Amazon and ebay. How many people are going to take the time to write up reviews of vendors if they have to pay to do that?

They have to pay anyway unless they're accessing the internet from a public computer or network.

Pay as you go is gouging the consumer.

Why? There's nothing wrong with charging people for the amount they use. It's a lot fairer than charging the same price to everyone regardless of use.

Bullshit. Equipment costs are one time and you get to write them off over time. The amount of customers that use one switch more then pay for it with their monthly costs. The wire cost is one time and you only have to go back for damage.

Individual investments are a one time thing, but companies have to constantly invest to keep up with demand. Telecoms are constantly spending money to upgrade and expand their networks, and they have to do even more as the network grows. Laying fiber-optic cable and building server rooms is not cheap, and there's a lot of it that has to be laid if we want Internet TV, high-definition video, VoIP or any other service that is entering the market at this time.

Most houses don't have that infrastructure, and someone is going to have to pay for it. It is not profitable to build that infrastructure in the current pricing system, so it won't be built unless companies like Google or Yahoo enter the telecommuications industry and do it themselves or internet neutrality is abolished.

There is ALREADY a tiered pricing model. Not everybody can afford T1s and T3s.

That's not the same. Once they pay that fee, they are free to use as much bandwidth as they want as often as they want with no additional cost. It should be like a natural gas connection; you pay a higher access fee for greater capacity, but then you also have to pay for the amount of gas used. Currently, the pricing system does not price according to amount used, which is massively unfair to those who use less bandwidth and a subsidy to those who use more.

Paying for the internet?! Are they crazy?! I smell lobbyism. :sniper: :gundge:
Of bribery. :rolleyes:

Of bribery. :rolleyes:

And profit. If Google's bottom line wern't threatened by the elimination of net neutrality, they wouldn't be trying to keep it in place.

You're doing that anyway when you pay a monthly fee for Internet access.
It's just a flat fee that you pay instead of according to usage. If you only use the Internet 50 hours a month, you pay the same amount as a person who uses it 500 hours per month. You're giving a discount to the people who use it the most at the expense of those who use it the least. Regressive pricing makes absolutely no sense in any other industry, so why should it in Internet access?


Isn't that how telephone, cable, or satellite access is regulated, by flat fee rather than usage? (Serious question, I don't know)

Isn't that how telephone, cable, or sattelite access is regulated, by flat fee rathere than usage? (Serious question, I don't know)

Not for the telephone; that's paid for according to the amount of minutes you use and where you call (same with cell phones). Satellite TV and cable are flat fees, but since they are constantly broadcast in a steady quantity there is no real difference in the amount used; you do have to pay more to hook up additional TVs with satellite or purchase special channels.

Not for the telephone; that's paid for according to the amount of minutes you use and where you call (same with cell phones). Satellite TV and cable are flat fees, but since they are constantly broadcast in a steady quantity there is no real difference in the amount used; you do have to pay more to hook up additional TVs with satellite or purchase special channels.

Well, so far the pricing structure on the Internet I have matches cable, including adding in extra connection points for more than one computer (in fact, my ISP is my cable company). For some sites, you do have to register or pay for access, much like special channels. What is the difference between cable and the internet that would account for a pricing plan based on usage?

You're doing that anyway when you pay a monthly fee for Internet access.
It's just a flat fee that you pay instead of according to usage. If you only use the Internet 50 hours a month, you pay the same amount as a person who uses it 500 hours per month. You're giving a discount to the people who use it the most at the expense of those who use it the least. Regressive pricing makes absolutely no sense in any other industry, so why should it in Internet access?

Actually no it doesn't and it would not be delivered that way. If the telcos were for it, we would not have cell phone plans. We would be like japan were you buy a card for hours use them and then buy another card....

As to your comparison. The amount of hours means nothing. That person could be a major news junky. He browses webs 500 hours a week.

My 10 hours of downloads would blow past him on usage.

They have to pay anyway unless they're accessing the internet from a public computer or network.

The point is you say this is a gigantic boon to consumers and the point is that probably ebay and amazon minor sellers would be hurt as people probably would not give them ratings if they have to pay to do it. Part of their business is the fact you get a good score, you tend to get more buyers.

Why? There's nothing wrong with charging people for the amount they use. It's a lot fairer than charging the same price to everyone regardless of use.


Ok. Usage is a nebulous term. People dont' give a crap about what others usage. It's all about access speed.

Googles business does not hurt my access speed.

Individual investments are a one time thing, but companies have to constantly invest to keep up with demand. Telecoms are constantly spending money to upgrade and expand their networks, and they have to do even more as the network grows.


Yes. And we tend to purchase more powerful equipment then what we need at the moment to allay the constant upgrade. They are trading out switches and routers every other month. The fact they buy in bulk also lowers their costs. The fact that many companies use one device, their outlaying cost is covered easily with one months fees.


Laying fiber-optic cable and building server rooms is not cheap, and there's a lot of it that has to be laid if we want Internet TV, high-definition video, VoIP or any other service that is entering the market at this time.


Yes it is. Once it's in place then you don't have to reinstall. The comm rooms don't change that much. The cost is when a company moves in and they have to drop all the cable for cubes and offices. You rarely have to drop new fiber to a building.

It's also a BIG selling point for the building if the stuff is already in place so companies that own buildings get it installed when they build them.


Most houses don't have that infrastructure, and someone is going to have to pay for it.

In farm town usa, sure.

In major cities no.


It is not profitable to build that infrastructure in the current pricing system, so it won't be built unless companies like Google or Yahoo enter the telecommuications industry and do it themselves or internet neutrality is abolished.


Ok you do understand DSL uses the phone line right? Much of the infrasture is already in place. In come cases, you get it by cable.

You will not see the US get wired up if the telecos get their way. They will just keep the winfall profits and keep business as usual.


That's not the same. Once they pay that fee, they are free to use as much bandwidth as they want as often as they want with no additional cost.


Yes it is. You pay the fee but you are also guaranteed a level of speed and availabilty.

The Quality of Service function in equipment controls your access to the pipe. It's not a case where Google fires up and all surrounding companies access goes to crap.

It should be like a natural gas connection; you pay a higher access fee for greater capacity, but then you also have to pay for the amount of gas used. Currently, the pricing system does not price according to amount used, which is massively unfair to those who use less bandwidth and a subsidy to those who use more.

Actually it can't work that way. With gas, you move it one direction to the house. Gas in a limited resource and you should pay for it if you use more.

With networking several back and forths go on to move a piece of data.

Now take for example if the ISP is having line problems. Retries use bandwidth. How do I prove I am being charged for the use when it's their fault?

Once we convert to IP6 then networking is unlimited.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe the lack of net neutrality would stop the rampant theft of intellectual property over the internet. People should get used to paying for things rather than just using it.
That's the saddest thing I've ever heard.

I pity your brain.

I haven't seen any evidence that any other country currently enjoys the legal protection the US is planning to remove.

And yet the internet seems to work just fine elsewhere.

This shit better not get passed or England here I come! :)

What makes you think the english want americans in our lovely land??? ;)

I haven't seen any evidence that any other country currently enjoys the legal protection the US is planning to remove.

And yet the internet seems to work just fine elsewhere.

And again. Everybody else doesn't have a "pay as you go" system that att and co want to install.

What the telecom's want to do is akin to installing a toll booth on every road in america, and at their discretion closing down any road they want to. That means that if the republican party pays them enough money, they could just say "Ok, ACLU.org, no one is getting to access you anymore!" They could utterly ruin the usefulness of the internet.

Now all of you sour people who think that just because you saw some idiot post something you didn't like in a forum that they might as well tear the whole net down, you really don't understand how important it has become, not only to major businesses, but to the average person. Everyone with an internet connection has access to a library of useful information on nearly everything, from cooking recipies to how to properly treat a severe burn in first aid. We have daily political discussions here that most of us would not be able to have in our normal lives. People can connect with others in a system that ignores geography. The internet is also an outlet for artists without the talent or recognition to get published, many of which are still worth seeing. Do we really want to see the internet turned into just another sterilized corporate monolith?