It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Congress Will Vote On the Future Of The Internet Soon

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:44 AM
Want a Smart Network or Dumb Pipe?

Congress is about to Vote, make up your own mind.

It's About the Future of the Internet as we know it....

This presentation gives a nice overview of what is going on and what the stakes are.

Visit if you are against regulation.

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 05:27 AM
Would they only regulate the USA? How would they have authority to censor servers in say the UK or South Africa?

If they made this law, surely people would move their info out of the country? Sorry im a little dim on the technology of the internet. I guess it would just restrict what we could look at in the US?

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:09 AM
It would make the web easier to manage if you wanted to tap into information as a non-constitutional country

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:24 AM
Cracking piece of propaganda there. Wonder which of the big media firms put that out there. Net neutrality is precisely what we have at the moment - all traffic is treated equally, rather than special consideration being given to data of certain types, or coming from certain places.

And it's that last bit that's the killer, especially in the US. Over here (UK) it's not so bad, as everyone has a great many choices for who provides their broadband service, and thus the market is healthier. In the US it's often the case that you have one ADSL provider and one cable internet provider for your area, and that's it. There's very little choice, and consumers can be locked into an effective monopoly.

What happens if your cable internet provider (who remember, also does TV and phone) decides that they'll prioritise data that is "theirs"? So you can download your HD movies from anywhere, but it'll be slower than it could be if you don't download *their* HD movies? What about if they make Google slower than their own search engine? What if they block or slow down VoIP traffic that isn't from their service that you therefore have to subscribe to?

What if they offer their full capacity to data from companies that are willing to pay a fee? How much is that fee? Why should they have to pay it? People like Google *already* pay huge amounts for their bandwidth. For that matter, so do you! What about little companies? Maybe they can't afford to pay off every different network provider, just so that they don't get shoved onto the internet "country lanes". It'll drain cash from the big companies, and make it hard for the little ones to get a foothold in what is an expanding marketplace.

Breaking net neutrality is just a way for network providers to "double dip" into bandwidth costs, lining their own pockets at your expense, and at the expense of non-network-owning content providers. Having said that, Google are on the side of neutrality *even though* they've been buying up unused fibre-optic network capacity like nobody's business.

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:10 AM
That flash movie is way off really.

Both you and the website owner pay a flat fee per month or year to use the web which we call A and thats all that has to be payed currently.

Now, with this bill, the following will happen.

The internet will turn into a toll bridge, you and the website still have to pay the flat fee per year (A), but now, both you and the website (B) have to pay a fee every time you use the internet too.

Not only do you have to pay a flat fee (A) and a fee for every time you use the internet (B), but you also have to pay differently depending on what goods you are carrying (C).

If your carrying goods from say Google, it'll cost you 100$ to receive the data, while if you carry goods from Yahoo, it'll cost you just 5$.

Now, on top of that, if you carry google goods, which you already payed for, you still have to pay an extra fee to be allowed to transport the goods at a speed over 5kbps( modem speed). (D) If you don't pay that fee, you didn't have to get that 8Mbit DSL line because all the speed you'll get from your favorite sites is modem speed.

If google now opts to pay the ISP's a massive flat fee sum to bring down the costs for its clients to access their sites (E), you can now take google goods over the net for just 5$, just like Yahoo goods.

If google wants to pay even more to ISP's (F), you might even be allowed to go at full 8Mbit speed.

So, the way the net is now, this is what has to be payed:

Website owner:
(A) a Flat Fee per month or year.

(A) a Flat Fee per month or year.

The web when they change it to what they propose to change it to:

Website owner:
(A) a Flat Fee
(B) a toll Fee per useage
(E) a fee payed by the websites so that their clients don't have to pay that much extra to access them.
(F) a fee payed by the website so that the speed for its clients is normal and not limited to modem speed.

(A) a Flat Fee
(B) a toll fee per useage
(C) an extra fee depending on what site you access.
(D) an extra fee depending on what site you access to be able to access that site at high speed instead of limited to modem speed.

So you see, instead of having to pay 50$ a month for a fat 8M/512k DSL connection, you'll have to pay extra for each and every seperate site you access and not only that, you also have to pay extra to be able to access the website at a reasonable speed.

Its been said that ISP's most likely will implement this by offering package deals, like you get limited access to your 500 most frequently visited sites for 100$ extra per month, and unrestricted access to those top 500 for 200$ a month.

Another thing they can choose to make you pay for that I didn't include in the example is bandwidth useage per website.
They can make you pay (A) to access the site (B) to get decent speed on the site and (C) to download more then 1MB/ month from the site.

ISP profites are already high and with the changes they want to be put in law, they would easely quadruple their income.

The Internet as it is now, is neutral, it doesn't make difference depending on what site your accessing or what speed your line is.

The bill is called Net Neutrality because thats what they are seeking to destroy.

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:54 PM
Oh my god!

This is gross propoganda and working on a 100% lack of knowledge of the actual process.

Those "lanes" are where you have to pay big companies to be able to move information, and thats the ONLY lanes there will be. Left over "lanes" are open for use. IE Companies control what info is sent over the net.


posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:58 PM
It would be absolutely horrible if we allowed the ISP's and telecoms to make more money. Coaxial cable is good enough for me now, it will be good enough for everyone to the end of the century.

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:38 AM

Originally posted by thematrix
Now, with this bill, the following will happen.

The internet will turn into a toll bridge, you and the website still have to pay the flat fee per year (A), but now, both you and the website (B) have to pay a fee every time you use the internet too.

Not only do you have to pay a flat fee (A) and a fee for every time you use the internet (B), but you also have to pay differently depending on what goods you are carrying (C).

The extra $$$ are the least of my concerns. What concerns me is that any form of regulation will create an environment where:

1) It will be impossible to remain anonymous
2) Smart routers programmed by smart coops will decide what you can see and what not.

Big brother anyone?

This way, it is just a matter of time before the Internet is no more than a regular cable channel, full of censorship.

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:01 PM
Alot of companies already host their data outside of the country.

Why hire a half taught network technitian for big bucks, when you can hire a specialist, for half of what an american gets paid?

The great thing about hosting in europe for say, Canada, is the unmonitored un-filtered fiber-optic lines going from Canada to Europe, can provide alot more bandwith, than the US monitored, backlogged, filtered lines going into the states.

So yeah, most companies in Canada host in europe... its simply smart buisness... it would be corporate suicide to host a Canadian site in the United States.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by johnsky]

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:14 PM
congress voted and the deal was deadlocked:

i mean after all,

the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

True political genius at work.

at least make an effort to understand the issues of the subject before you attempt to pass the law.
Politics are so cute nowadays...

new topics

top topics


log in