It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A bill to inhibit some Web sites.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
The house passed a bill that will allow the communication companies to charge more or less to some web page providors. This will inhibit free speach. And as CNN puts it, it will not be nutrel and fair.



Here's how Susan Crawford, a professor of cyberlaw and intellectual property at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, puts it:

"Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along? The traditional telephone model has been that the telephone company doesn't get paid more if you have a particularly meaningful call -- they're just providing a neutral pipe."


Those of you who live in the US and want to see the Net stay nutrel and fair might want to consider contacting your representive.

action.freepress.net...
www.cnn.com...

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link



[edit on 16-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I have already taken the time to write my representatives about this(for all the good it will do.)

The end of the "free" net is upon us.


Next thing you know cities will charge you to walk on the sidewalk(we already have toll roads) This seems of course to be tied in with a couple other proposals, aimed at regulating the net.


[edit on 11-6-2006 by TONE23]

[edit on 11-6-2006 by TONE23]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Tone,
Thanks for takeing the time to write. With the amount of support that this thred has been getting, I was thinking no one really cares.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
Tone,
Thanks for takeing the time to write. With the amount of support that this thred has been getting, I was thinking no one really cares.


NP. there are plenty of us that care but all we can do is write our reps and tell them we dont agree. Unfortunately If I had more time and money I would go off on a crusade to save the internet personally. Being that I do not have that abundance of time and money all I have left is my letters to those Ive helped elect.
you are doing good by bringing this to light


Also, there is another thread here at ATS that is similar:coming soon:the web toll



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Someone else posted this topic on the ATS News, so hears the link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I still hope this can be stoped.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
If you can take the time to write to (dare I assume a publicly useless representative) then perhaps we the people should take the time to write to the phone companies and explain how we would like a different service provider?
Perhaps we the public would be better of writing to the people who run the phone companies personally (force them to buy another big mansion with a less well known postal address)?

One thing is for certain. Your democratic representatives aren’t going to represent your interests on this one.

I still agree that writing to them is a good idea (perhaps a small percentage aren’t that bad?) but if they have risen to become your local representative their will ether something very wrong or very extraordinary about them. Can't think of anything extraordinary? Then save the waist of trees and write to some other place instead. If it takes me half an hour to log onto ATS I will be pissed. And it won't be at the people who run it, nor will it be at our representatives (after all what did you expect them to do?) rather it will be at the people who run the phone companies, and the people who don't join in boycotting them. This is called direct action and it gets things done.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
hear is an up date to what is hapening,
THE US Senate Commerce Committee has been unable to reach a compromise on internet network neutrality, a week before the panel is supposed to vote on it as part of a broader communications reform bill.

australianit.news.com.au

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 16-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
hear is an up date to what is hapening,
THE US Senate Commerce Committee has been unable to reach a compromise on internet network neutrality, a week before the panel is supposed to vote on it as part of a broader communications reform bill.



Well, it's good to see the final stone hasn't been cast.
The thought of big corporations with legal access to controlling global information is really a sad one.


Write your congressman/woman and let them know you want net neutrality!

Peace,
~Jammer+

mod edit to remove link from quote

[edit on 16-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I'm rather skeptical about all this.

The telephone analogy isn't quite accurate. You can pay the phone company for extra services, or pay for a toll free number. If you want to do video conferencing you need more than a regular phone line to handle that.

I wouldn't presume that the ISPs and telecoms are paragons of virtue, but their stated reasons for wanting to do what they said don't trip my BS detector. They don't want to slow anything down so much as speed certain parts up, and they want to charge money for that benefit.

People wanting to be able to provide a service for which they get paid sounds like normal business to me, and making that illegal by saying all web traffic must be clumped together sounds to me like unnecessary government meddling.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join