Net Neutrality ?

I dont really understand this....would this mean
the goverment will mandate the internet ?

news.zdnet.com...

I posted a thread on this bill trying to get people here to see what was happening. We have allowed the gov. and or corporation to get more control of the internet, to control more and more of what we see.

Here is the link to the old thread, mod please don't close the current thread as it is different than my old one and I am only posting the old one due to the info in it on the COPE bill. Thanks

long before it became a public domain. It's not that they're gaining more control over it, they've always HAD control over it as it is theirs from conception.

The sad truth is that we are privilaged in being able to use it and have become rather indignant and complacent about the use of it.

It became a corporate money making machine, and although the government can attempt to limit it, the skeleton is in place.

At the very least they could further their own net and cordon off a large chunk strictly for governmental usage. To take it over completely is literally impossible.

No matter how they burden the private sector with legalities, snooping laws, data mining and informations extortion...the end result is that they will be forced to break off from the public end of the internet.

Don't laugh...such a division means HUGE capital to the telcos, hydro corps and cable companies...

Check out Q-west and it's reach in fibre optics NorthAm circle...redundancy out the wazoo...

Hydro corporations and cable corps as well as satelite...I mean the internet is a Public creature. Limitations are innevitable with anything and everything. But there are so many choices right now and coming in the future...

Naked DSL for one...no dial tone required - the telcos in Canada are freaking out...VoIP is huge here too and Naked (raw) DSL is the wave a'coming.

So while the governement tries to sanction and censor...the internet is a giant loop hole and will never be a privatized venture. Never. Never ever.

As I said, it's far more reasonable and cost effective and secure for the Gov to seperate and run it's own internet different pipes baby.

The way I understand the whole Net Neutrality thing is that without safeguards it will be possible for companies to give preferential treatment in terms of bandwidth usage to the services they choose and deny bandwith to others. An example of this would be Sprint strangling the bandwidth for users on its network viewing websites of their competitors, making the sites seem poor in quality and discouraging them from switching to another provider. That of course would be just a small issue compared to if they start taking sides on instant messnegers, news sites, or even online retaliers. On the flip side those in favor of tiering up bandwith in such a fashion say that its necessary to keep the internet flowing just fine and that if not people will choke the internet with traffic only to popular sites like MySpace, Youtube, and other bandwith intensive sites.

Thanks everone for your replies, I understand now. I think it is Bull5h1t !
More and more i look at business as a sport, i always thought it was diffrent.

Sorry I forgot the link, and important info

www.democracynow.org.../05/08/1352255

This week, the House is expected to vote on Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006. The COPE bill would permit phone and cable companies to operate Internet and other digital communications service as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. The bill would effectively end what is known as "net neutrality" which is the concept that that everyone, everywhere, should have free, universal and non-discriminatory access to all the Internet has to offer. The COPE bill would permit Internet service providers like AOL to charge fees for almost every online transaction and to prioritize emails based on the senders' willingness to pay.

Another provision of the bill would cut back the obligation of cable TV companies to devote channels to public access and fund the facilities to run them. And the COPE bill would replace local cable franchises with national franchises. The companies contend that this will create competition and lower fees but consumer groups and activists are concerned that it will take control and oversight away from local government as well as cut channel capacity for public, educational and governmental access channels or PEGs. The COPE Act would also permit providers to not provide service to low-income communities that they believe would be less profitable to serve.

Also here is the link to the thread that also has more info on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...





[edit on 10-6-2006 by goose]