Save the Internet From the Government

Recently there has been controversy over the issue of "net neutrality." Companies like Google and Microsoft are trying to get Congress to prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from charging them higher rates for customer access to their sites. Many groups involved in political activism, such as Gun Owners of America, also expressed a desire to see the ability of ISPs to charge higher rates restricted. They have done this in the name of "saving the Internet."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/que1.html

 

Just a note that I took when reading the first lines. Shouldn't it be Google and Microsoft rater than the so called "evil government"? Anyway, I think it's best for the ISPs to decide the rate, don't you think so?

 

I would love someone to explain the deal with this...I'm a bit confused the meaning behind it all.

 

That is a stupid post. They are going to take control of the internet and charge you high fees to regulate it. Why would you want that? Do you like being told by the government when to think? Do you like rich people dominating you? If so, maybe this new law isn't such a bad thing then.

This isn't rocket science. Rich powerful old men want to control the internet. Edward Whitacre, CEO of AT&T, says that the internet pipes "belong" to him. If these people get there way, you and anyone else who makes a living off the internet will probably be unemployed. Does that make sense?

 

Here's an explanation. Please read.

Also check out this thread on how AT&T tried to extort e-bay, amazon and google.

 

Thanks YoungSmeagol for your post. It is important for everybody, no matter where you live, to understand this. The internet is, and I've said this before, the last refuge we have. They've already taken full control of tv, which is the reason I rarely watch it, and refuse to pay for cable.

The internet is everything, and everything is the internet. It has leveled the playing field so that big corporations can't dominate. Now these bastards want to control it. Just writing this post makes my blood boil.

It is the exact reason I support P2P. All these corporations can go straight to hell. They've been ripping us off for years, dominating everything. They won with tv, but they are not going to win with the internet, I guarantee it.

As long as people like me and YoungSmeagol understand what their attempting, we will fight back. You think P2P is something? Wait until Dark Net hits the streets. The Swedish police think they did something by shutting down Pirate Bay...............HHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAH!!!!

They won the battle........we will win the war.

 

I just got this mail from the Inside Adsense team - might be of interest to many here.

 

This is weird part of the entire posting on the website http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#who

Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like.

In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.
Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.
In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

Are not all the above company decisions that have NOTHING to do with net neutrality, but rather not allowing competitors?
This is legal, and legit....
Just as I will not allow competition to advertise on my site, the above companies are protecting their own turf, which is their full right.

Somehow, the argument given on that site wants to bring in all sorts of legitimate site blocking, etc into the fray.

IMHO

 

http://www.itsournet.org/2006/06/coalition_founders_on_to_the_s.php

Reaction to tonight’s House vote on H.R. 5252 from Amazon.com, eBay, Google, IAC/InterActiveCorp, Microsoft and Yahoo!, founders of the “It’s Our Net” Coalition:

While today's vote was a disappointment, we’re not surprised, nor are we discouraged. Internet users and businesses across America are increasingly concerned about the prospect of Internet discrimination by network operators. We are confident that as more Americans learn what is at stake, Congress will act to protect Net Neutrality in a meaningful way.

Despite today's vote, some House members have worked tirelessly to preserve the rules of the road for the Internet and we would like to particularly thank Representatives Rick Boucher (D-VA), Chris Cannon (R-UT), John Conyers (D-MI), John Dingell (D-MI), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Heather Wilson (R-NM), and Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI).

Net Neutrality now moves to the Senate, where Senators Snowe (R-ME) and Dorgan (D-ND) have already introduced a bi-partisan, pro Net Neutrality bill that we strongly support. We look forward to working further with Chairman Stevens (R-AK) and Co-Chairman Inouye (D-HI) on this very important issue and continuing the open and thoughtful discussions we have had with Senators and staff. We are confident that the Senate will ensure that the open Internet is protected, Internet users and businesses are free to compete and innovate, and America's global leadership in Internet services and technology is preserved.

 

AT&T was trying to get Google, Amazon, and Ebay to pay them or they would block their sites from loading on AT&T's networks. None of those sites are AT&T competitors.


Does it bother you that the price was so high that these sites would rather create their own broadband service than pay those outrageous fees?

This is going to stop Internet start ups looking to be the next google or ebay from ever reaching their full potential.

At the very least you can say goodbye to youtube.com, video.google.com and other bandwidth intensive services. You might even lose some of your adsense revenue and the traffic you get from google could decrease considerably.

The worst thing that could happen is that domain hosting costs could sky rocket to pay for the new bandwidth restrictions.

The one thing that's shocked me the most about this whole thing is how the telecom companies could spin this as a republican partisan issue when we are usually for small businesses and free marketplace.

 

Yikes.. hopefully, they wont charge for showing other small sites on their network.

 

Let's hope they give us that at least.

 

Another thing that's so wacky about this whole situation is that sites like handsoff the internet are against internet regluation while they never mention the regulations that allowed the telecom companies to gain a monopoly in the broadband market in the first place.

I am also puzzled with how savetheinternet.com has never really fought against the anti-competition regulations themselves. They probably don't focus on it because the issue is not liberal enough. They really should focus on allowing competition in the broadband marketplace as well as fighting for network neutrality.

I guess what I am saying is that if broadband companies decide they want to discriminate against websites then consumers should be allowed to choose other broadband service providers. There should be no regulations in place stopping competition.

 

The reasons they will give will be for national security, so be prepared to be called unpatriotic.

 

Don't be moronic. The net is under attack by everyone, not one lone government. Are you blind to what the Chinese Government has been doing?

 

This thread should rather be called "Save the internet from the telecom companies" or something like that. The US Government would have no more influense over the internet if this becomes reality.

 

Give me a break. Al Qaeda constantly uses their websites to post fatwas and videos of them detonating IEDs and killing American soldiers. If the US Government had as much "control" over the net as you paranoids claim, they would have shut those down years ago. Take off the tin foil hat, latehorn.

 

One of a bigger Asian IP hjas tested software to block ads from Google. RThat happened about 2 years ago.
Google solved that issue.

Goverments should keep their fingers away from that business, it will only burn them.

Recently the EU discussed and demanded to tax Emails,
For the moment its quiet again, but stay alert, those bastards are always lurking and trying to find ways to sneek in to gain more and more control over the net.

 

At least some good news

Senate Bill Would Fine Web Providers Who Block Access (Update1)
June 19, 2006 16:16 EDT -- The U.S. Senate's communications bill would allow regulators to fine Internet-access providers such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. if they block subscriber access to legal content or services.