Goodbye Internet That I Love!!

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

Looks like the Internet is about to go the way of Communist China here in America. Telecoms can now charge websites for access, however they see fit. This isn't a conspiracy theory - the powers that be are stifling dissent "Thought-crime, the only crime that matters.." and we shall see the Foxification of the Internet shortly. God help us.
Please read the article at this link, digg it if you can: http://www.digg.com/politics/FTC_Abandons_Net_Neutrality_2
and tell your friends.. I need lunch..

[walt]

This is bad news indeed.

This is all about MSM trying to maintain their position.

There are some things that just can't be left up to the states. This is one of them.

[angrydragon]

Hmm not this again. Net Neutrality will just open the door for government regulation. It'll gain more regulations little by little if we let Net Neutrality pass.

[ThePieSwindler]

Isn't Ron opposed to net neutrality as well, but NOT for this reason, simply because it is still government regulation?

[nayjevin]

"Net Neutrality" is doublespeak. It is government intervention to try to keep the internet free.

BS. Free means gov't get the hell out.

[dseisner]

Does this mean that the more hits a website gets, the more the cable/dsl companies can charge that website for access to the internet? If so...oh lord.

[Phil M]

As much as I hate corporations regulating the internet, I would prefer them over the government doing it. If we give the government the authority to regulate the internet in this instance, it will strengthen their case when they want to regulate or license blogs. We can't have it both ways.

[ThePieSwindler]

"Net Neutrality" is doublespeak. It is government intervention to try to keep the internet free.

BS. Free means gov't get the hell out.

Thats what i thought. What is a free market alternative, then? This article seems to point out that the telecoms will now charge websites for internet access. Will certain ISPs be able to block websites that do not pay? It seems just as bad, though i certainly trust private corporations more than the government...

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I wouldn't use an internet access company that didn't provide total internet access. So, if MSN tried to charge websites for access, I would know I wasn't getting the full, free internet, and would switch to a company that didn't charge website access.

The market can take care of this. No government needed.

[kalami]

yay, let's leave it up to the markets. Now the three broadband companies that available in my area can compete over me. Problem with the above post is that how many ISPs can you choose from and are they in collusion with each other?

[ThePieSwindler]

I wouldn't use an internet access company that didn't provide total internet access. So, if MSN tried to charge websites for access, I would know I wasn't getting the full, free internet, and would switch to a company that didn't charge website access.

The market can take care of this. No government needed.

Thats a good point, and if ALL the current ISPs blocked certain sites from access, new ISPs would spring up to fill the niche.

[beermotor]

yay, let's leave it up to the markets. Now the three broadband companies that available in my area can compete over me. Problem with the above post is that how many ISPs can you choose from and are they in collusion with each other?

Yeah this is a difficult problem. However, I am confident that competition is going to force these guys to not go super crazy. We need to fight at the local level to defeat energy and information monopolies. Make sure your counties and cities don't give out monopoly contracts.

[Gee]

If the Internet dies, its going to be because misinformation like this caused excessive and unnecessary regulation.

Telcomms have always been able to do stuff like this. The FTC has never been for net neutrality. If they tried to charge websites for access, no one would pay it, and they'd loose tons of business. The only monopolies are on the last-mile level, and even then ISPs have not even tried to do anything like this, or even talked about it.

Maybe some people at Digg should actually read the article?

"In the absence of significant market failure, or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."

Even if it was a problem, the most logical course of action would be to remove the laws which allow the monopolies to exist in the first place.

[CAKochenash]

As much as I hate corporations regulating the internet, I would prefer them over the government doing it. If we give the government the authority to regulate the internet in this instance, it will strengthen their case when they want to regulate or license blogs. We can't have it both ways.



whats wrong with the way it was?

[angrydragon]

Those who (gamers, movie downloads, streamers, etc...) use huge amounts of traffic on their broadband connection are charged more or will be. This is sort of how it works today, those who want faster speeds pay more. The regular users who check websites and emails probably won't see any difference in prices at all. Prices won't be going up because of non-regulation, prices always go up because of regulations.

[WannaBfree]

ARTICLES:

Threats To Internet Freedom All Too Real
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/301106internetfreedom.htm

The End of the Internet?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

What The "Chinese Style" Internet Will Look Like
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607chinesestyle.htm

[Phil M]

whats wrong with the way it was?

Nothing. But now that both private companies and the government seem to want to regulate the internet, I would rather choose the former.

[Gee]

Nothing. But now that both private companies and the government seem to want to regulate the internet, I would rather choose the former.
Companies don't want to regulate it. Thats a myth spread by people for Net Neutrality, though to what end I don't know.

And damn, Crooks and Liars is a scary, scary website. If its representative of what people really believe, I'm honestly afraid.

[MGS]

Looks like the Internet is about to go the way of Communist China here in America. Telecoms can now charge websites for access, however they see fit. This isn't a conspiracy theory - the powers that be are stifling dissent "Thought-crime, the only crime that matters.." and we shall see the Foxification of the Internet shortly. God help us.
Please read the article at this link, digg it if you can: http://www.digg.com/politics/FTC_Abandons_Net_Neutrality_2
and tell your friends.. I need lunch..

I just wanted to say i love your username :D

[ThePieSwindler]

Companies don't want to regulate it. Thats a myth spread by people for Net Neutrality, though to what end I don't know.

And damn, Crooks and Liars is a scary, scary website. If its representative of what people really believe, I'm honestly afraid.

Yeah man well, everyone knows the Repubs are all "crooks and liars" while the dems and liberals are the truthful, compassionate bunch.

[mesler]

If this happens, I'll be switching internet providers, and having the rest of my family do so as well.

[Dave Wood]

I thought this had more to do with huge users of bandwidth? if this is the case then would a youtube video be more expensive than a downloading site for movies? How about places like amazon and ebay? I am very confused over this issue

[jd603]

Unfortunately current government regulation stifles the free market in telecom.. so the "let the market decide" argument might not work this time, if the markets were always "free" then we may have never had this problem.

I will need to look into this more... bottom line is I do not trust the current big-4 telecom carriers to play fair here, and I don't expect a free market alternative to come about to combat any censoring/tarifs put forward by these companies for many years if at all.


Edit: ok, the FTC seems like they might drop their case, but the FCC has not, so even though FTC is not fighting, nothing had happened with this yet.



Thats what i thought. What is a free market alternative, then? This article seems to point out that the telecoms will now charge websites for internet access. Will certain ISPs be able to block websites that do not pay? It seems just as bad, though i certainly trust private corporations more than the government...

[Gee]

There are far more than 4 internet backbone providers; its more like 14. The issue is over the last-mile, where ISPs typically have oligopolies.

The responses to this article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/06/ftc-abandons-net-neutrality/#respond
are really, really scary. It sounds like a bad chapter from Atlas shrugged. One guy even says: "...apparently us hillbillies who live in the sticks (rural areas) don’t deserve high speed access. Even if we did have access out here I’m sure it wouldn’t be at an ‘affordable’ price. Just another reason to hate the big Telecommunications Industry, as well as our own government. Thanks for the freedom, Uncle Sam."

I had no idea people thought this way :(

[jd603]

I wasn't talking about "backbone" carriers. 75-80% of the ACCESS circuits in this country are the big-4 , thats where they can leverage and beat up the content providers and hosting companies.

I'd certainly terminate any services with providers that tried this on the backbone level as long as it is possible. The Internet can exist without even the largest carriers if it needs to, and I don't think their customers will be happy if they slow access to different web sites etc. It could just blow up in their faces.


There are far more than 4 internet backbone providers; its more like 14. The issue is over the last-mile, where ISPs typically have oligopolies.

The responses to this article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/06/ftc-abandons-net-neutrality/#respond
are really, really scary. It sounds like a bad chapter from Atlas shrugged. One guy even says: "...apparently us hillbillies who live in the sticks (rural areas) don’t deserve high speed access. Even if we did have access out here I’m sure it wouldn’t be at an ‘affordable’ price. Just another reason to hate the big Telecommunications Industry, as well as our own government. Thanks for the freedom, Uncle Sam."

I had no idea people thought this way :(