|
02-11-2009, 01:43 AM
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 284106
|
Net Neutrality.
I swore there was already a thread about this, but a search yielded nothing. Thought we should have a thread about current events and updates as legislature gets a little braver about the issue of net neutrality. You can read more about NN on SaveTheInternet.com, which I highly urge you do. If you think this won't be important to you in the next 5 years, you're fucking wrong. Google also has a slightly dumbed down version.
This video on the Daily Show today motivated me to make the thread. Old timey fucks. EDIT: Google's page mentions the Open Internet Coalition, and after reading up about it it makes me wonder if something like this DID pass, and ISP's all took up charging premiums for the content you see, if these companies would start their own "free content" ISP. I guess that wouldn't work, if the actual websites required some sort of gateway validation to actually access the site in the first place, I suppose they could block connections coming in from non-verified servers. Fuck. I wonder what the upsurge in illegal internet connections should be. Honestly, I think the existence of Anonymous in itself, along with all the other hackers in the world, will really fuck shit up for the idea of charging for internets. |
|
Last edited by Mr. Blonde; 02-11-2009 at 01:51 AM. |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 10:59 AM
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Lost in Hilbert Spice
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,519
Internets: 183146
|
I really don't see that much of a need for news to be as big as it is, within the next x years as more people get easier access to the internet they can just report, obviously it could be biased but the more people that report on the same thing, the more accurate it will be.
What's your opinion on the BBC and such? currently anyone that has a TV or anything capable of recieving a live transmission has to pay around £100 per year, whether they use the services of the BBC or not. |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 11:23 AM
|
#3 (permalink) | |
|
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 284106
|
Quote:
That being said though, this is like getting every channel on TV for free ever, including all the porn and movie channels, and all of the sudden them being like "nope, now we're charging you." Not only am i not going to pay for that service, i'm going to find a way around it anyways. This is a lot harder to do with cable TV than internet, too. | |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 11:33 AM
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Lost in Hilbert Spice
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,519
Internets: 183146
|
Being pretty much forced to pay for a license, which gives you access to two BBC channels (the BBC get £4 billion a year from this)
I don't think this should be the case, it's a government run buisness, it would be easier to just have basic TV (with maybe one emergency channel) and then pay for the cable services, It's all about choices/freedom. I know that the government here are trying to put another tax across to get broadband available to everyone. BBC NEWS | Technology | Plans target Digital Britain push |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 12:35 PM
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 13,643
Internets: 247330
|
Just a hunch, but this might be a total non issue. The internet is likely too large and too valuable for short-sighted interests to fuck it up in any reasonable degree. Freedom and complete disclosure is the trend of humanity. I think the internet will stay on that track.
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 01:54 PM
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
MURICAN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,136
Internets: 253094
|
What's stopping ISPs from offering dumbed-down internet service for cheap, then making that more the norm than the exception, then charging extra for the entire internet?
Most of us have maybe 2-3 real choices for ISP, it's not as if the market is completely frictionless. I can't just say, "fuck you, i'll go to the other guys" |
 The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 02:23 PM
|
#8 (permalink) | |
|
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 284106
|
Quote:
| |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 03:47 PM
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
The issue as I see it:
We already pay for the internet. You have to have an ISP to get connected. You're paying for content, though not to specific sites. By allowing providers to set fees to access certain sites, they're effectively stifling free speech. If I put up a blog, what right does any ISP have to charge someone a fee for entrance? That's like setting up a bar and having the government tell you that all of your patrons will have to pay a cover charge to Budweiser just to come in. Not to mention that it opens up the ability for ISPs to say to site owners that they have to pay a fee in order to end up on a specific "tier" of access. So it's basically telling small businesses that unless they can pay the ISP $10k per year to be on the "basic cable" level of access, they will only be accessible to those who have the money to spend on the "movie channels" of the internet. It's a cash cow for the ISPs and they know it. They can rape the consumer AND the website the customer wants to visit. How many of us would stay on the internet if it cost $100/month just to access small sites like Nubblies? What good is it if we can only afford to access the company websites for Coke and Pepsi? Things like wikipedia would cease to exist because large encyclopedia companies who can afford to pay for basic tier access could then charge the consumer to use their site and still be less expensive than paying higher monthly charges for access to sites that operate for free and can't afford to pay for better access. Basically, the end of the free internet will kill its growth. Period. It's too ingrained to cease to exist, but it won't be the wealth of diversity and options that it is now. |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 03:50 PM
|
#11 (permalink) |
|
MURICAN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,136
Internets: 253094
|
Well I'd like to think that the wise heads of the telecom companies realize that killing the internet kills them as well?
But yes, I actually would pay $100/month for unlimited internet if that were the price. The internet is just too dear to me. |
|
The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 03:56 PM
|
#12 (permalink) | ||
|
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
Quote:
I don't really trust corporations too much at the moment. Quote:
| ||
|
Last edited by TwoBlackEyes; 02-11-2009 at 03:59 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 03:59 PM
|
#13 (permalink) |
|
MURICAN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,136
Internets: 253094
|
Nodog.jpg
|
|
The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2009, 04:26 PM
|
#15 (permalink) | |
|
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
Quote:
Vuze Takes Dim View of Cox Net Neutrality Plan If it's a non-issue, why are so many companies working so hard on ways to skirt the issue? These companies have a lot of money lobbying the government to change its stand. It's one of the major reasons that I'm glad Obama was elected - I think he has a better understanding of the way the internet works than old fuckers like McCain and Ol' Tangled Up Tubes Thompson. | |
|
|
|
|
03-26-2009, 12:01 PM
|
#16 (permalink) |
|
Lost in Hilbert Spice
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,519
Internets: 183146
|
Net Neutrality FTW!
Timothy Karr: Everyone Gets a Bonus from Obama's Net Neutrality Plan Everyone Gets a Bonus from Obama's Net Neutrality Plan Timothy Karr Posted March 23, 2009 | 09:35 PM (EST) Buried deep in President Barack Obama's American Reinvestment and Recovery Act is a line that should bring a smile to your face -- and a scowl to phone and cable industry lobbyists. It requires that billions of dollars directed to connect more Americans to broadband be spent on services that meet "nondiscrimination and network interconnection obligations." What this really means is the good guys have won one battle in the fight for an open Internet. According to Obama's plan, government must now require that the $4.7 billion in federal grants for high-speed services be spent the right way: building networks that abide by Net Neutrality. In other words, this money -- your money -- cannot be used by powerful companies like AT&T and Comcast to implement plans to "manage," filter or re-route you whenever you traverse the Web. They have been angling to do so since it became clear that people wanted to use the Internet for more than simple email, ecommerce and search. No Blank Checks The good news is that this stimulus money isn't going to be a blank check to big phone and cable. It comes with strings attached, requiring that all networks built with our money leave control over the Internet in the hands of the people who use it every day -- people like you and me. AT&T and Verizon can't use our money to invest in content filtering tools similar to the Deep Packet Inspection software now being used by China and Burma to sift through Web traffic. Comcast and Cox Cable can't block file-sharing software or other popular and legal Web applications. None of them can use taxpayer funds to decide how and when we watch videos, from whom we purchase goods and services, and where we can or cannot go online. The only bonus being handed out here is Net Neutrality, a benefit for the millions of Americans who rely daily upon the Internet to improve their economic status, better educate their children, connect with friends and family, and participate more fully in our democracy. A Bid to Undercut Neutrality But get this: Just as Washington is deciding how to spend your tax dollars on an open Internet, phone and cable company lobbyists are trying to water down the Net Neutrality requirements, and stamp out consumer choice. They came out into the open during a public meeting Monday in Washington. "The idea that we should lay additional and unknown regulations on top of the task of the people getting this grant money is, I think, troubling at best," said Jonathan Banks of the U.S. Telecom Association during a meeting at the U.S. Department of Commerce. James Assey, of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association said that Net Neutrality requirements could create "uncertainty" in the marketplace. Chris Guttman-McCabe, speaking on behalf of the largest wireless carriers, said openness rules take away from the central focus of the stimulus package, which is "creating the most jobs and helping reverse the recession." The Internet's Bedrock Principle Such misleading statements are designed to make people think its in everybody's interest to hand over control of the Internet to the same companies that pay the salaries of these three lobbyists. But what Banks, Assey and Guttman-McCabe failed to note is that Net Neutrality rules have always governed their profitable clients, such as when AT&T agreed to run a neutral network as a condition of its merger with BellSouth in 2007; or in 2008 when the FCC decided to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer protocols such as BitTorrent. The only "uncertainty" in this marketplace would result from giving mighty network providers new powers to fiddle with our content. To do so would undercut the level playing field that has always made the Internet a great engine for free speech and commerce. Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott just delivered 15,000 letters to the administration demanding that this basic freedom -- the right to connect to anyone, anywhere -- remains the bedrock principle of any new networks built with federal funds. The voices of Internet users are clear and unequivocal on this, Scott told the agencies in charge of distributing the Internet stimulus. If you want to use our billions, we need to know that we're getting online freedom in exchange. |
|
|
|
|
04-16-2009, 10:44 PM
|
#17 (permalink) |
|
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 284106
|
Another win.
Time Warner Scraps Bandwidth Cap Testing Time Warner Cable has shelved plans to test consumption-based billing until it can improve its "customer education process," the company announced Thursday. "It is clear from the public response over the last two weeks that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about our plans to roll out additional tests on consumption based billing," Time Warner CEO Glen Britt said in a statement. "As a result, we will not proceed with implementation of additional tests until further consultation with our customers and other interested parties, ensuring that community needs are being met." Time Warner started testing bandwidth caps last year in its Beaumont, Texas market – a test that it recently expanded to North Carolina and New York. But while rival Comcast implemented a 250GB bandwidth cap for residential customers last year without much fanfare, and AT&T announced plans to test a 150GB cap, Time Warner took some heat because its caps were relatively low – between 5GB and 40GB. The company eventually announced it would also offer a 100GB "super tier" and unlimited service for $150 per month, but by then, Congress was already up in arms and interest groups were circulating online petitions against the caps. "While we continue to believe that consumption based billing may be the best pricing plan for consumers, we want to do everything we can to inform our customers of our plans and have the benefit of their views as part of our testing process," Britt said Thursday. As part of its education process, Time Warner will provide customers with tools to help them understand how much bandwidth they consume. No mention of how long that will continue before testing resumes. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, was in Rochester Thursday afternoon to speak out against the proposed caps, according to stopthecap.com, a Web site set up to protest the caps. "StoptheCap has been working with the senator's office throughout the day today to help coordinate the visit, which will take place in Irondequoit at the home of just one resident who will be directly impacted by Time Warner's plans," according to the site. "We look forward to continuing to work with Senator Schumer, our customers, and all of the other interested parties as the process moves forward, to ensure that informed decisions are made about the best way to continue to provide our customers with the level of service that they expect and deserve from Time Warner Cable," Britt concluded. Free Press, which set up an online petition to encourage a congressional investigation into the Time Warner caps, applauded the move. "We're glad to see Time Warner Cable's price-gouging scheme collapse in the face of consumer opposition," Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, said in a statement. "Let this be a lesson to other Internet service providers looking to head down a similar path. Consumers are not going to stand idly by as companies try to squeeze their use of the Internet. This is a major victory, but the fight for a fast, open and affordable Internet is far from over." The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) – which championed Time Warner's testing process on Wednesday – said the company's decision "is completely consistent with how they have approached this from the beginning." "Bottom line: they have been and are engaged in exactly the kind of outreach and transparency interest groups profess to want," NCTA president and CEO Kyle McSlarrow said in a statement. source "customer education process" wow what a bunch of fucking condescending dicks "While we continue to believe that consumption based billing may be the best pricing plan for consumers, we want to do everything we can to inform our customers of our plans and have the benefit of their views as part of our testing process" How exactly is having a 5-40gig bandwidth cap better for me than my current, which is unlimited? I love how they're saying this shit without even ATTEMPTING giving us any sort of logical reason as to why they're doing it (even though we all know its just to make more money) "The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) – which championed Time Warner's testing process on Wednesday – said the company's decision "is completely consistent with how they have approached this from the beginning." Oh thats strange, you'd think if that was any sort of truth at all and this WASN'T corporate backpedaling they would have been implementing it the WHOLE FUCKING TIME. "Bottom line: they have been and are engaged in exactly the kind of outreach and transparency interest groups profess to want," NCTA president and CEO Kyle McSlarrow said in a statement." .....and there the interview ends, no ,we're not going to explain why that makes sense, we haven't figured it out yet. |
|
|
|
|
04-16-2009, 10:57 PM
|
#18 (permalink) |
|
Been told twice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 312
Internets: 1299
|
My city was supposed to be a test market for this.
We had already begun to look for alternatives to TWC because of it. We canceled our cable when Netflix started streaming instantly through the xbox, and I probably stream 4-5 hours or more of high-def movies and TV through our internet every single evening. And I don't think we're alone. I'm just glad someone over there woke up and realized that they were gonna lose a LOT of customers in this market to AT&T and other services over this. |
|
|
|
|
08-19-2009, 01:28 AM
|
#19 (permalink) |
|
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 284106
|
this is a crock of shit imo.
Ruling could let model find, sue online heckler - CNN.com NEW YORK (CNN) -- A model who was slammed with derogatory terms by an anonymous blogger has the right to learn the identity of her online heckler, a judge ruled. In August 2008, a user of Blogger.com, Google's blogging service, created "Skanks in NYC," a site that assailed Liskula Cohen, 37, a Canadian-born onetime cover girl who has appeared in Vogue and other fashion magazines. The blog featured photos of Cohen captioned with terms including "psychotic," "ho," and "skank." On Monday, New York Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden ruled that Google must hand over to Cohen any identifying information it possesses about the blog's creator. Steven Wagner, Cohen's attorney, said Google complied with the ruling Tuesday evening, submitting to his legal team the creator's IP address and e-mail address. Only a valid e-mail address is required to register for a blog on Blogger.com. Wagner said that once his legal team tracks the e-mail address to a name, the next step will be to sue Cohen's detractor for defamation. He said he suspected the creator of the blog is an acquaintance of Cohen. The blog has not been operational for months. The complaint The unidentified creator of the blog was represented in court by an attorney, Anne Salisbury, who said her client voluntarily took the blog down when Cohen initiated legal action against it. Salisbury suggested that Cohen is more interested in attracting publicity than restoring her reputation. She contended her client's blog would have languished harmlessly in obscurity had Cohen not filed suit. The site had negligible traffic and only five posts on it, all written on a single day, she said. In her ruling, the judge quoted a Virginia court that ruled in a similar case that nameless online taunters should be held accountable when their derision crosses a line. "The protection of the right to communicate anonymously must be balanced against the need to assure that those persons who choose to abuse the opportunities presented by this medium can be made to answer for such transgressions," the judge said, quoting the Virginia decision. Cohen's attorney said he was "happy that the court recognizes that the Internet is not a place where people can freely defame people." But the blogger's attorney strongly disputed the judge's reasoning. Salisbury asserted that her client's invective was not unusual for the Internet, and that hyperbolic online name-calling is so rampant -- "in comments sections, on Twitter, on blogs" as to practically be part of the Web's DNA. She warned that Monday's ruling has "potentially damaging implications for free speech on the Internet." After the ruling, a Google spokesman expressed sympathy for targets of Internet insult-slinging, but said the company divulges user information only when ordered to do so by a court. "We sympathize with anyone who may be the victim of cyberbullying. We also take great care to respect privacy concerns and will only provide information about a user in response to a subpoena or other court order," Google's Andrew Pederson said. |
|
|
|
|
09-24-2009, 08:59 AM
|
#22 (permalink) |
|
Lost in Hilbert Spice
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,519
Internets: 183146
|
Who do the United States think they are to think they can make rules for everyone?
O wait. I posted about PeerGuardian 2 in the torrent thread, but there were a lot of issues with it and vista/win 7, due to the owner not updating the software for 2 years It blocks all known government/ads/p2p IP addresses, it's not bloated at all. Check it out, It may stop the Party Van from showing up, you bunch of kiddy fiddlers. Home (Peer Block) |
|
|
|
|
11-04-2009, 07:28 PM
|
#23 (permalink) | |
|
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 284106
|
Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad. - Boing Boing
Quote:
| |
|
|
|
|
11-04-2009, 08:44 PM
|
#24 (permalink) |
|
Lost in Hilbert Spice
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,519
Internets: 183146
|
Pretty hard for anything of this to pass due to no single country owning the internets, I know for sure i'll fuck them over if they try and take my 2k.
Now only if all the countries were united into some form of union.. oh shit! (lisbon treaty EU bullshit thread) Last week the UK Secretary of state came out with some bullshit method of forcing ISP's to crackdown, middle of 2011 is the shortest time for it to be put in place. The asshole thinks that there's a lot of people that don't know piracy is illegal and will probably throw hundreds of millions on advertising/school programs to tell everyone that. He says that after 2 warnings you get DC for a year, at the same time they (labour government) are trying to get 100% internet access by 2012 due to it being necessary in this day and age. I wonder who foots the bill to get a signal into some sheep ridden shithole cave in the middle of wales. Obviously as soon as they try and pull this shit a lot of people will move to the best ISP around that wont rat on it's customers. "The third offence will lead to a judge ordering a one-year internet rights suspension or issuing a fine. " And just how do they plan on enforcing this? I don't want to end up having to crawl to the nearest back-alley cyber cafe to I could picture a situation where google cloud or something gets really popular, and desktops are old hat, where it would be possible for the few to control the many. not possible with this structure though, I like it. Lord Mandelson's plans to deal with internet piracy need to be quick and clear - Telegraph |
|
|
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
