US Senate approves the death of the internet
Blighty
225 Posts
Open net calls fall on deaf earsInternet campaigners have failed in a bid to prevent plans for a so-called "two-tier" internet from going ahead.[/b]A US Senate committee has approved a bill which aims to let internet service providers provide some customers - and companies - with preferential services.Under the plans, providers would be allowed to give customers faster internet access for a fee."Net neutrality" campaigners have attacked the plan, saying there should be equal access for all web users.The critics argue that the wildfire growth of online services has been driven by the ability to deliver services to anyone.If telecoms firms could block or slow down access to their customers unless services providers paid extra, that would be threatened, they say.After a three-day hearing, the committee rejected an amendment from Republican senator Olympia Snowe and Democrat Byron Dorgan which aimed to prohibit phone and cable companies from limiting access to their high-speed internet networks based on site content or financial arrangements."What's at stake is the internet in the 21st century," said Ms Snowe. "This is the preservation of digital democracy."Limited access?Hundreds of interest groups - including Google, eBay and Amazon - have been lobbying for protection from any moves by broadband providers to limit the access of customers.The proposals aims to make it easier for telecoms firms to offer video services around America by replacing 30,000 local franchise boards with a national system overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).Supporters claim it will save consumers money, while critics fear it will see net providers decide which websites and services customers can visit and use.The bill has already won backing in Congress, but Senator John Kerry, who supports the Snowe amendment, has threatened to delay it with a filibuster - a method used to delay or postpone the passage of legislation.Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/5129964.stm
Comments
So it the Senate still have to vote on it? Is there more to the process than that? I'm not American so I don't have every aspect of your political system burnt into my brain.
oh.
Yes. It looks like they may have the votes too. But it could be delayed.
This is certainly bad news, but it's not dead yet.
Arundhati Roy. A very smart and beautiful woman.
Never dead. I have faith that people will stop this. But in the US and here in the UK things are getting really fucked up right now.
I have not followed this as closely as I should have, and there have been SS posts. My understanding is the providers want to charge web sites different rates based on speed. Meaning the speed the site would go out to consumers. If I want my web site to as accessible as amazon I would have to pay the higher rate that amazon pays.
It is a good thing that ebay, amazon, google and other big names are fighting this. they want the web to be wide open and wild even though a 2 multi tiered system would put them at the top.
All of the articles I have read are foggy, so I may have it wrong.
It's the other way around. Web content providers would have to pay more for their customers to receive quicker access. It's like creating an upper and lower class of websites. And like in the real world, part of creating and maintaining an upper class involves actively suppressing all lower classes.
It makes me wish I was a hacker/cracker. If this goes through, I'd like to see as many denial-of-service attacks as possible on those who pay for the faster access.
sounds like joining that upper-tier of companies is an invitation to get hacked...
I think this is a pretty accurate representation of what's going on, i.e. the big money sites get all the bandwidth, and those that can't afford to pay get to suck wind...
what are the advantages of this law passing or whatever ? another words what is the purpose of it ? is it to make more money off the internet ? are they trying to prevent something ?
As far as I can tell it's just companies wanting to make more money off everything. The internet providers would have you belive they are providing this amazing service and barely making a cent off of it.
Verison, Quest, comcast and other major high speed networks want to make the change. They say video is the future of the internet. They want to become the video providers by creating a high speed low traffic network. They could then turn the internet into another cable tv system. As long as you and me and soulstrut are on the other low speed network we wont be clogging their lines.
On the us government tip, this is now out of a senate committee. The full senate would need to pass the bill, then the congress would need to pass the same or similar bill, then the pres needs to not veto the bill. Or the president could use his war powers to declare it necessary for the security of the nation and just make the change on his own.
Remember 4 out of 5 supreme court justices believe there is no limit to the presidents powers.
edited for spelling. Bill Gates wants me to capitalize internet.
I would imagine huge communications companies have more power than Amazon, Ebay, etc.
I think it's important to note that the Goverment is not a neutral party here. I think this bill is very likely to pass, because, as I said before, it will create a class system on the internet (our current administration would love to see our real-world class system dissolve into two categories). Also, the internet is a refuge for freedom of the press and (relatively) objective reporting on domestic and world issues. I don't think our government would shed too many tears if that were to change. Notice the slant this getting in the mainstream media? Fox generally refers to net neutrality as a movement of internet-users who oppose the concept of preferred customers paying a premium for "better service." As if this "better service" didn't actually mean "inferior service" for everyone else.
If (when) this happens, I predict usage of the term "web terrorist" will see a significant increase on Fox News.
link
Alter-ego cowerdice.
Exactly what I would expect from someone who said that Nazis were not anti-sematic.
not sure how much good it's going to do but it's better than not signing it...
http://www.savetheinternet.com/