this could never work, at least not the way the internet is structured now.
there are literally billions of pages out there. there are also tens of thousands of ISPs in north america alone. for a company to pay one comm network to bump up their access speed would be ridiculous. you would need to pay all or at least a majority of the ISPs and even then, it wouldn't bar users from accessing the rest of the internet, it would just make one website load content faster. and it would hardly crush the little guys in the game because there are billions of other pages. if the website could pay the ISPs to slow down competitors and keep their website at the same access speed or faster, that would definitely make a difference, but there must be some legal issues behind that. so, not now, not soon...
this could never work, at least not the way the internet is structured now.
there are literally billions of pages out there. there are also tens of thousands of ISPs in north america alone. for a company to pay one comm network to bump up their access speed would be ridiculous. you would need to pay all or at least a majority of the ISPs and even then, it wouldn't bar users from accessing the rest of the internet, it would just make one website load content faster. and it would hardly crush the little guys in the game because there are billions of other pages. if the website could pay the ISPs to slow down competitors and keep their website at the same access speed or faster, that would definitely make a difference, but there must be some legal issues behind that. so, not now, not soon...
No offense, but you don't sound well-informed. There is no hardware, software, or structural problem with restricting bandwidth for or blocking certain consumers and not others. It would be akin to phone carriers charging for long distance. Conduit owners would filter based on ISP, not destination. Which is actually the same thing, because everybody's got to get service from somewhere, but it sounds like you're conceiving of it backwards.
Seriously, if you're not scared by this, you should be. It is ridiculous and will absolutely happen unless people take action.
If content is controlled and regulated on the internet, who, exactly, decides what stays or goes? Dissenting viewpoints, alternative news sources, regular interpersonal communitcations (read: forums, chat rooms, email, etc) could all change drastically or be eliminated.
This is some scary shit.
The way things are right now with corporate monopolies and the government, all of this is very possible considering how much both sides have to gain.
This has been planned for a while now, actually. I remember reading (and I'm paraphrasing) a quote from Donald Rumsfeld mentioning controlling the internet "in the intrest of homeland security" or some such.
The internet is too powerful.
Isn't anyone concerned about what the fuck is going on anymore? I was gonna call someone and tell them about this when it dawned on me: "someone may be listening" How crazy is that? As unlikely as it may be, the possibility is still there.
And I'm wondering, what the fuck is happening to this country?
I remember listening to an interview with Chomsky back in the late 1990s and he was asked whether the internet would take power away from the few and put it back into the hands of masses. He said that everytime a new form of mass communication appeared there was a battle to control it, it happened with newspapers and magazines, with radio and with television and in every case the people lost out to the interests of a few rich powerful people. Fuck letting that happen this time.
what can be done? Seriously, not many people have a clue how the internet is governed (including myself) and I'm not the one to wave flags or messages. I'd do it if that helps, but what can you do? Maybe there is a chance, as worldwide connections still hold and people can be informed very fast. So in case AT&T plans something or decides to cut down bandwith so that sites like indymedia.org cannot be reached nomore, the internet could help again to blame them. Or not? I'm puzzled...
We can all educate ourselves about this. We can spread the word through conversation, emails (articles, the video clip, website links), etc. We can write to the corporations involved and express our disgust and inform them that we will not stand for this. We can write similar letters to politicians. Bottom line is this agenda cannot work without our support. These corporations need our money and they need us to keep them functioning. Without us they are nothing. We need to remind them of that.
This is probably a dumb question - but, let's say that AT&T, Verison, and other big service providers do this - what is to stop a compnay from coming along and offering to NOT block content in order to try and wrestle control of the market? It would seem that greed could possibly be outdone by more greed in cases like this, no?
Like I said, maybe that is the dumbest idea ever, but it just popped to mind. Doesn't it seem like this could only really work if all companies banded together in an effort to police the net? If so, I personally doubt these companies have the morals to do such a thing.
Like I said, maybe that is the dumbest idea ever, but it just popped to mind. Doesn't it seem like this could only really work if all companies banded together in an effort to police the net? If so, I personally doubt these companies have the morals to do such a thing.
Well, I don't think that these companies have any morals about being fair in content distribution; I think their morals start and end with the shareholders.
BUT, if these companies did get together to do this, that would be collusion, and they could face billions of dollars in lawsuits. Which is a bigger deterent than any sort of fairness.
Like I said, maybe that is the dumbest idea ever, but it just popped to mind. Doesn't it seem like this could only really work if all companies banded together in an effort to police the net? If so, I personally doubt these companies have the morals to do such a thing.
Well, I don't think that these companies have any morals about being fair in content distribution; I think their morals start and end with the shareholders.
BUT, if these companies did get together to do this, that would be collusion, and they could face billions of dollars in lawsuits. Which is a bigger deterent than any sort of fairness.
right - but what I mean is, consumers would always want an un-content-blocked web. Doing this would seemingly instantly create a huge new market of customers not being served. So, in this age of 790 flavors of potato chips, wouldn't it seem like some company would see this and - as a marketing ploy offer back the service people used to have? Or am I missing a huge part of this?
This is probably a dumb question - but, let's say that AT&T, Verison, and other big service providers do this - what is to stop a compnay from coming along and offering to NOT block content in order to try and wrestle control of the market? It would seem that greed could possibly be outdone by more greed in cases like this, no?
Like I said, maybe that is the dumbest idea ever, but it just popped to mind. Doesn't it seem like this could only really work if all companies banded together in an effort to police the net? If so, I personally doubt these companies have the morals to do such a thing.
Yes. When there is a market demand you can be certain that there will be companies that will try to meet it. If this did come to pass you can be sure that there will be companies looking to exploit the backlash.
Well, I think companies could offer blocked content, and some would take it if it came with a decent cable package and free On-Demand.
But, I agree with you; in the age of shareware and the free software movement, I feel like someone could take advantage of companies that tried to block content, and make a lot of money. I'm not sweating this yet.
I dunno - it just seems like this is in many ways not the same as what has happened with other media like TV, and newspapers, etc. More people have a personal investment in the web that is unlike anything we've ever seen before...
If it weren't for the internet, most would have never even heard about this story. What other stories will the public be denied if this takes place?
Proposed rule changes would tangle the Web[/b] By Michael Socolow Originally published May 9, 2006 Congress wants to change the Internet. This is news to most people because the major news media have not actively pursued the story. Yet both the House and Senate commerce committees are promoting new rules governing the manner by which most Americans receive the Web. Congressional passage of new rules is widely anticipated, as is President Bush's signature. Once this happens, the Internet will change before your eyes.
The proposed House legislation, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), offers no protections for "network neutrality." Currently, your Internet provider does not voluntarily censor the Web as it enters your home. This levels the playing field between the tiniest blog and the most popular Web site.
Yet the big telecom companies want to alter this dynamic. AT&T and Verizon have publicly discussed their plans to divide the information superhighway into separate fast and slow lanes. Web sites and services willing to pay a toll will be channeled through the fast lane, while all others will be bottled up in the slower lanes. COPE, and similar telecom legislation offered in the Senate, does nothing to protect the consumer from this transformation of the Internet.
The telecoms are frustrated that commercial Web sites reap unlimited profits while those providing entry to your home for these companies are prevented from fully cashing in. If the new telecom regulations pass without safeguarding net neutrality, the big telecom companies will be able to prioritize the Web for you. They will be free to decide which Web sites get to your computer faster and which ones may take longer - or may not even show up at all.
By giving the telecoms the ability to harness your Web surfing, the government will empower them to shake down the most profitable Web companies. These companies will sell access to you, to Amazon.com, Travelocity.com and even BaltimoreSun.com, etc. What if these companies elect not to pay? Then, when you type in "amazon.com," you might be redirected to barnesandnoble.com, or your lightning-quick DSL Internet service might suddenly move at horse-and-buggy speed.
It might appear that the direct ramifications of this bill are somewhat obscure. Why should you care, if your Internet fee isn't altered? Or if your Web surfing will (possibly) be only minimally disrupted? (The telecoms understand that completely barring access to certain sites - especially the most popular ones - would be counterproductive.)
You should care because any corporate restriction on information gathering directly counters the original purpose of the World Wide Web.
"Universality is essential to the Web," says its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. "It loses its power if there are certain types of things to which you can't link."
If calling up the Web site of your favorite political commentator takes far longer than surfing to a commercial site, the new laws will have a direct impact on the Web's democratic utility. The proposed laws also facilitate future steps toward corporate censorship. Do you think that the telecoms, under the proposed regulations, would make it easy to visit the Web sites of their disgruntled - or possibly striking - employees?
The proposed new rules have received surprisingly sparse media coverage. The new laws have economic, political and social ramifications. There are several explanations for the silence.
The most probable is simply that because the laws have strong bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, they do not appear particularly newsworthy. COPE has been promoted vigorously in the House by both Texas Republican Joe L. Barton and Illinois Democrat Bobby L. Rush. While a few legislators are attempting to preserve net neutrality - most notably Democratic Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - they are clearly outnumbered.
The history of American telecommunications regulation does not offer a promising model for the future of net neutrality. In the late 1800s, Congress approved of Western Union, America's telegraph monopoly, censoring the Associated Press. The 1934 Communications Act resulted in political discussion over the national airwaves being tightly moderated by CBS and NBC.
Most telecom laws are sold to the public as the "natural evolution" of communications technology. Yet there is no truly natural evolution to our telecommunications laws. Only very rarely is regulation completely ordained by physics or technological limits. More commonly, it emerges from the political process. This is news to many Americans unaware of their own media history.
Many people believe the Internet's decentralized structure guarantees that no company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship - whether by corporate or state interests - simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your screen, it will be too late to complain.
Michael Socolow is an assistant professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine. His e-mail is [Email]michael.socolow@umit.maine.edu.[/Email] Copyright (C) 2006, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery
This is probably a dumb question - but, let's say that AT&T, Verison, and other big service providers do this - what is to stop a compnay from coming along and offering to NOT block content in order to try and wrestle control of the market? It would seem that greed could possibly be outdone by more greed in cases like this, no?
Yes, BUT they own the lines that the internets coming streaming onto your computer from. So the debate is stating that they (possibly) have a right to do so because they own the infrastructure it operates on.
So how will this affect groups like One Economy, who seek to create completely wireless cities to provide broadband internet access for all (most specifically for those who can't afford it)? I'm not too familiar with how they work. Are they still using the networks of larger corporations like Verizon, Comcast, etc.?
Ya'll are suprised? People don't make money for the betterment of society, that is just an occasional bi-productt. They make money for the sake of making money. And from the standpoint of prviate and intellectual property, this is an obvious step in the progression to make more money.
I know I'm on the far left, especially where I come from. But I'm really surprised at all the shock-and-awe in this thread.
Put yourself in the CEO seat of one of these billion dollar communication conglomerates. This is a no-brainer.
As for what to do. You have to battle these people on the same playing ground, which is unfortunately in the law courts and congress. And for that you need either a political party or a mass-organisation. From what I know about America I doubt the Democrats are going to do anything about this and the emergence of a third party is doubtful, leaving the creation of a mass-organisation dedicated to combatting this. Does such a thing exist?
Good luck.
- A in Canada.
PS - hcrink, I believe the internet works a lot like our phones. With the phone lines certain companies own certain lines and then rent them out to other providers. if this was the case, then those larger companies could chose simply not to rent out their lines to the little guys who want to offer level-website-internet (or whatever you want to call it).
Blighty
225 Posts
Comments
there are literally billions of pages out there. there are also tens of thousands of ISPs in north america alone. for a company to pay one comm network to bump up their access speed would be ridiculous. you would need to pay all or at least a majority of the ISPs and even then, it wouldn't bar users from accessing the rest of the internet, it would just make one website load content faster. and it would hardly crush the little guys in the game because there are billions of other pages. if the website could pay the ISPs to slow down competitors and keep their website at the same access speed or faster, that would definitely make a difference, but there must be some legal issues behind that. so, not now, not soon...
No offense, but you don't sound well-informed. There is no hardware, software, or structural problem with restricting bandwidth for or blocking certain consumers and not others. It would be akin to phone carriers charging for long distance. Conduit owners would filter based on ISP, not destination. Which is actually the same thing, because everybody's got to get service from somewhere, but it sounds like you're conceiving of it backwards.
Seriously, if you're not scared by this, you should be. It is ridiculous and will absolutely happen unless people take action.
how disturbing.
our freedoms are being picked off one by one.
If content is controlled and regulated on the internet, who, exactly, decides what stays or goes? Dissenting viewpoints, alternative news sources, regular interpersonal communitcations (read: forums, chat rooms, email, etc) could all change drastically or be eliminated.
This is some scary shit.
The way things are right now with corporate monopolies and the government, all of this is very possible considering how much both sides have to gain.
Again, this is some scary[/b] shit.
This has been planned for a while now, actually. I remember reading (and I'm paraphrasing) a quote from Donald Rumsfeld mentioning controlling the internet "in the intrest of homeland security" or some such.
The internet is too powerful.
Isn't anyone concerned about what the fuck is going on anymore? I was gonna call someone and tell them about this when it dawned on me: "someone may be listening"
How crazy is that?
As unlikely as it may be, the possibility is still there.
And I'm wondering, what the fuck is happening to this country?
This book is also getting to me.
http://www.youtube.com/v/G5RQrxkGgCM
Not by far. Better not think what you do on the Internet is private by a long shot.
what can be done? Seriously, not many people have a clue how the internet is governed (including myself) and I'm not the one to wave flags or messages. I'd do it if that helps, but what can you do? Maybe there is a chance, as worldwide connections still hold and people can be informed very fast. So in case AT&T plans something or decides to cut down bandwith so that sites like indymedia.org cannot be reached nomore, the internet could help again to blame them. Or not? I'm puzzled...
(unless you're at work, and they've blocked youtube content. in that case, it will remain a mystery.)
Like I said, maybe that is the dumbest idea ever, but it just popped to mind. Doesn't it seem like this could only really work if all companies banded together in an effort to police the net? If so, I personally doubt these companies have the morals to do such a thing.
Well, I don't think that these companies have any morals about being fair in content distribution; I think their morals start and end with the shareholders.
BUT, if these companies did get together to do this, that would be collusion, and they could face billions of dollars in lawsuits. Which is a bigger deterent than any sort of fairness.
right - but what I mean is, consumers would always want an un-content-blocked web. Doing this would seemingly instantly create a huge new market of customers not being served. So, in this age of 790 flavors of potato chips, wouldn't it seem like some company would see this and - as a marketing ploy offer back the service people used to have? Or am I missing a huge part of this?
Yes. When there is a market demand you can be certain that there will be companies that will try to meet it. If this did come to pass you can be sure that there will be companies looking to exploit the backlash.
But, I agree with you; in the age of shareware and the free software movement, I feel like someone could take advantage of companies that tried to block content, and make a lot of money. I'm not sweating this yet.
What other stories will the public be denied if this takes place?
Proposed rule changes would tangle the Web[/b]
By Michael Socolow
Originally published May 9, 2006
Congress wants to change the Internet.
This is news to most people because the major news media have not actively pursued the story. Yet both the House and Senate commerce committees are promoting new rules governing the manner by which most Americans receive the Web. Congressional passage of new rules is widely anticipated, as is President Bush's signature. Once this happens, the Internet will change before your eyes.
The proposed House legislation, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), offers no protections for "network neutrality."
Currently, your Internet provider does not voluntarily censor the Web as it enters your home. This levels the playing field between the tiniest blog and the most popular Web site.
Yet the big telecom companies want to alter this dynamic. AT&T and Verizon have publicly discussed their plans to divide the information superhighway into separate fast and slow lanes. Web sites and services willing to pay a toll will be channeled through the fast lane, while all others will be bottled up in the slower lanes. COPE, and similar telecom legislation offered in the Senate, does nothing to protect the consumer from this transformation of the Internet.
The telecoms are frustrated that commercial Web sites reap unlimited profits while those providing entry to your home for these companies are prevented from fully cashing in. If the new telecom regulations pass without safeguarding net neutrality, the big telecom companies will be able to prioritize the Web for you. They will be free to decide which Web sites get to your computer faster and which ones may take longer - or may not even show up at all.
By giving the telecoms the ability to harness your Web surfing, the government will empower them to shake down the most profitable Web companies. These companies will sell access to you, to Amazon.com, Travelocity.com and even BaltimoreSun.com, etc. What if these companies elect not to pay? Then, when you type in "amazon.com," you might be redirected to barnesandnoble.com, or your lightning-quick DSL Internet service might suddenly move at horse-and-buggy speed.
It might appear that the direct ramifications of this bill are somewhat obscure. Why should you care, if your Internet fee isn't altered? Or if your Web surfing will (possibly) be only minimally disrupted? (The telecoms understand that completely barring access to certain sites - especially the most popular ones - would be counterproductive.)
You should care because any corporate restriction on information gathering directly counters the original purpose of the World Wide Web.
"Universality is essential to the Web," says its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. "It loses its power if there are certain types of things to which you can't link."
If calling up the Web site of your favorite political commentator takes far longer than surfing to a commercial site, the new laws will have a direct impact on the Web's democratic utility. The proposed laws also facilitate future steps toward corporate censorship. Do you think that the telecoms, under the proposed regulations, would make it easy to visit the Web sites of their disgruntled - or possibly striking - employees?
The proposed new rules have received surprisingly sparse media coverage. The new laws have economic, political and social ramifications. There are several explanations for the silence.
The most probable is simply that because the laws have strong bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, they do not appear particularly newsworthy. COPE has been promoted vigorously in the House by both Texas Republican Joe L. Barton and Illinois Democrat Bobby L. Rush. While a few legislators are attempting to preserve net neutrality - most notably Democratic Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - they are clearly outnumbered.
The history of American telecommunications regulation does not offer a promising model for the future of net neutrality. In the late 1800s, Congress approved of Western Union, America's telegraph monopoly, censoring the Associated Press. The 1934 Communications Act resulted in political discussion over the national airwaves being tightly moderated by CBS and NBC.
Most telecom laws are sold to the public as the "natural evolution" of communications technology. Yet there is no truly natural evolution to our telecommunications laws. Only very rarely is regulation completely ordained by physics or technological limits. More commonly, it emerges from the political process. This is news to many Americans unaware of their own media history.
Many people believe the Internet's decentralized structure guarantees that no company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship - whether by corporate or state interests - simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your screen, it will be too late to complain.
Michael Socolow is an assistant professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine. His e-mail is [Email]michael.socolow@umit.maine.edu.[/Email]
Copyright (C) 2006, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery
Yes, BUT they own the lines that the internets coming streaming onto your computer from. So the debate is stating that they (possibly) have a right to do so because they own the infrastructure it operates on.
I know I'm on the far left, especially where I come from. But I'm really surprised at all the shock-and-awe in this thread.
Put yourself in the CEO seat of one of these billion dollar communication conglomerates. This is a no-brainer.
As for what to do. You have to battle these people on the same playing ground, which is unfortunately in the law courts and congress. And for that you need either a political party or a mass-organisation. From what I know about America I doubt the Democrats are going to do anything about this and the emergence of a third party is doubtful, leaving the creation of a mass-organisation dedicated to combatting this. Does such a thing exist?
Good luck.
- A in Canada.
PS - hcrink, I believe the internet works a lot like our phones. With the phone lines certain companies own certain lines and then rent them out to other providers. if this was the case, then those larger companies could chose simply not to rent out their lines to the little guys who want to offer level-website-internet (or whatever you want to call it).