Net Neutrality dead?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06 June 2006   #1
Net Neutrality dead?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5063072.stm

"The vote is a defeat for Google, eBay and Amazon which wanted the net neutrality principle protected by law. All three mounted vigorous lobbying campaigns prior to the vote in the House of Representatives. "
__________________
Disclaimer: My opinions are not those of my employer.



Last edited by eek : 06 June 2006 at 09:45 PM.
 
Old 06 June 2006   #2
It's things like this that make me want to murder everyone in a five mile radius.
__________________
BREAK
 
Old 06 June 2006   #3
I'm sure the only one's who will benefit from this law will be Comcast, AOL, Earthlink, the Bells, and other telecom sleazeballs.

.
 
Old 06 June 2006   #4
well, still has to get through the senate. =/
 
Old 06 June 2006   #5
Please vote out every Republican in office. Enough is enough.
__________________
deus es
 
Old 06 June 2006   #6
 
Old 06 June 2006   #7
I know it is hard for this topic, but lest keep the politics off the thread.


-R
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
Old 06 June 2006   #8
How would this affect people who don't live in the States?
__________________
Check out my pretties!
 
Old 06 June 2006   #9
Well it's not protected, but it's not dead either. What will happen is some idiot company will start charging and people will be like...screw that, and then a big underground will develop that is "free" and neutral, killing the stupid companies who are trying to screw us over, and then new companies will profit by offering a charge neutral net service very similar to what we pay for now.

It's a typical model of bigger companies being unwilling to change, and moreover unwilling to spend money to change, so they charge us more so they can do less. Someone will do it better (cough GOOGLE cough), and they will win.

The only reason it wasn't passed is that the internet backbones are not state-owned, they are private. Becuase the main backbones are owned by MCI, COVAD, etc, they can in theory do whatever they want because it's private property. Doesn't mean we have to like it though. Soon enough the entire US metro area will have a free hotspot provided by google and earthlink, and we can kiss aol and the other scumbags goodbye.

I've been with speakesy for a while now. No bandwidth restrictions whatsoever and they operate their own backbone, so I don't have to deal with this crap. http://www.speakeasy.net/
I also have their bundled VOIP service which is great (free calling to over 20 countries), and their customer service is top notch. I am now in no way whatsoever tied to a telecom. Yay!
__________________
My brain can imagine more polygons than your brain.
http://www.3dfightclub.com <---great speed modeling site
Today's challenge: 15 minute scissors
 
Old 06 June 2006   #10
Man, but with support from Alysa Millano! She was on Who's The Boss!

Seriously though....it was only a matter of time the internet became a controlled commodity.....Enron PART II!
 
Old 06 June 2006   #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyartist
Please vote out every Republican in office. Enough is enough.


Get real. It is absurd and ignorant to believe that issues of money in politics are devided by such lines.


Net Neutrality is an important thing that must be handled correctly. I certainly do not want to be limited in my access to sites such as Google and what not. But on the other hand, I don't laws in place that will make it harder or impossible for net users to restrict access to unwanted sites such as porn or such. Also, it would be nice if there could be restrictions on pop up adds that wouldn't inadvertantly get blocked by freedom laws that are not specific enough. The wrong net neutrality laws, while allowing the freedoms we as net users want, could also create problems with some of the undesirable Internet conduct. If I am not mistaken, the article posted was specifically dealing with a semi-related issue (COPE Act) where net neutrality support was attempted to be added as an amendment. I would rather see laws wholy and specifically developed to deal with this issue. I support anyone who is campaigning for net neutrality, but I urge people to do so smartly, not blindly or hastily.

I agree that once any company attempts to cross the already established line of ISP conduct, we will see a massive backlash of net users. But if it gets to that point, things could be harder to change.
__________________
Proverbs 17:28 - Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive.
 
Old 06 June 2006   #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by maX_Andrews
a big underground will develop that is "free" and neutral

The DarkNet. Outside of normal servers, the DarkNet lives... there's myths about that.
__________________
Dinner Date - Stout Games
 
Old 06 June 2006   #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by charleyc
Get real. It is absurd and ignorant to believe that issues of money in politics are devided by such lines.


Net Neutrality is an important thing that must be handled correctly. I certainly do not want to be limited in my access to sites such as Google and what not. But on the other hand, I don't laws in place that will make it harder or impossible for net users to restrict access to unwanted sites such as porn or such. Also, it would be nice if there could be restrictions on pop up adds that wouldn't inadvertantly get blocked by freedom laws that are not specific enough. The wrong net neutrality laws, while allowing the freedoms we as net users want, could also create problems with some of the undesirable Internet conduct. If I am not mistaken, the article posted was specifically dealing with a semi-related issue (COPE Act) where net neutrality support was attempted to be added as an amendment. I would rather see laws wholy and specifically developed to deal with this issue. I support anyone who is campaigning for net neutrality, but I urge people to do so smartly, not blindly or hastily.

I agree that once any company attempts to cross the already established line of ISP conduct, we will see a massive backlash of net users. But if it gets to that point, things could be harder to change.


Why stop at pr0n tho (and of course one persons definition of pr0n differs greatly from another).....wouldn't it also make it so ISPs that are in the presidents ledger could block access to protest sites....or vital information that they deem dangerous, or religious practices they deem unworthy....this is a hinderence on our basic rights as american citizens......Ridiculous notion! But leave it to our horribly oppressive government to tell us what we can and cant view or say.
 
Old 06 June 2006   #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertoOrtiz
I know it is hard for this topic, but lest keep the politics off the thread.


-R



All due respect Roberto but the hold point of it is political.
It is based on politics and lobbying.
__________________
deus es
 
Old 06 June 2006   #15
It's interesting to me to hear what some people consider their rights. If I access the internet through Comcast, I'm paying a fee to gain access to their equipment. My only rights in this area is to accept whatever parameters they have established in using their technology, or, if I don't like the product I'm buying, stop paying for it and go somewhere else.

But what I'm hearing here is that Private companies don't have the right to control their own product. In a way, AOL has been doing this for years, providing content through the web that only AOL subscribers have access to.

The bottom line is, if an ISP wants to charge content providers to make that content available through the ISP's network, they have every right to do so, and those content providers have every right to pay or not pay. If enough content providers decide to not pay, it will only hurt the ISP, as customers will choose a competing ISP that doesn't limit the content they get when browsing.

But government regulation over private commerce can't be the right answer to this purely financial issue. The only reason they would need to get involved is if there was a monopoly on internet access, and consumers couldn't choose another option.

Eric
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.