homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » Other Geeky Stuff   » Ask a Geek!   » "Net Neutrality"

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: "Net Neutrality"
TonyRad
Assimilated
Member # 1448

Icon 1 posted May 22, 2006 18:23      Profile for TonyRad     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, I've been seeing this thing around the internet a decent amount lately, called net neutrality. I personally don't know very much about it but I'm kind of curious about it. I was wondering if anybody else here has heard anything about it and what your thoughts are on it? If you want to read up on it here are a couple sites I have come across...

http://www.savetheinternet.com
http://www.handsoff.org

--------------------
~Live by the Sword~Die by the Sword~

Posts: 371 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted May 22, 2006 18:46      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From Boing Boing:

Astroturf site from telcos' PR company against Net Neutrality
Neil found a site called "HandsOff.org" that seems to be a grass-roots campaign from "a nationwide coalition of Internet users" against Internet regulation. On closer inspection, though: "it's nothing more than a front for business interests that was set up by a PR company called the Mercury Group. If you've ever wondered why government seems so far removed from the will of the people, the existence of 'astroturf' campaigns like this go some way to explaining why."


and from saschameinrath.com:
Looking at the footer on HandsOff, but that didn't provide any information on who was actually running the site. The "about us" section just said things like "Hands Off The Internet is a nationwide coalition of Internet users." Which begs the question, "Who are the members of this 'national coalition of Internet users?"

This lead me to take a look at the "Membership Organizations" section -- and low and behold, membership organizations included:
AT&T
Bell South
Cingular Communications
The National Association of Manufacturer
and a host of industry front groups


If you really want to learn more about net neutrality, start with the Wikipedia entry and some of the external links found there.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
TonyRad
Assimilated
Member # 1448

Icon 1 posted May 22, 2006 20:05      Profile for TonyRad     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah.. I don't really think those sites are too grand at providing information.. They don't have any backings, it was a start for me though.

I'm still wondering of other peoples thoughts on this.

--------------------
~Live by the Sword~Die by the Sword~

Posts: 371 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
magefile
Highlie
Member # 2918

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted May 22, 2006 23:50      Profile for magefile     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's what I think it refers to. A lot of ISPs have started doing various traffic shaping things to conserve bandwidth - throttling things like Bittorrent and other P2P apps, VOIP in various forms, and other high-bandwidth stuff. Then, some jagoff came up with the bright idea of offering "premium access" to customers - that is, an entity with a web presence of some sort could pay them for a higher quality (that is, faster) pipe. So if you want to download music from Napster, for example, and they're a customer, Napster would get preference over iTunes.

Net neutrality then, is the idea that an ISP exists to move bits from point A to point B, and who cares what point A is? They should not be able to bribe (yeah, yeah, inflammatory language) the ISP to move their bits to ISP_Subscriber_B faster than point C's bits are moved.

--------------------
Let them be stupid - the market will sort it out.

Posts: 743 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
quantumfluff
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 450

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted May 23, 2006 09:18      Profile for quantumfluff     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The reason you need neutrality is to prevent monoplization of the bit pipes. Verizon does not want to sell me a fiber optic bit pipe. They want to sell me telephone and TV service that *happens to be delivered* over the bit pipe they have also sold me. Verizon wants the right to throttle rates down the pipe solely at their discretion. That will allow them to choke my connection if I were to, for example, buy telephone service from another VOIP provider, or movies from a (hypothetical) download service.

Without a promise of neutrality, there can be no competition in advanced services.

Posts: 2901 | From: 5 to 15 meters above sea level | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 23, 2006 12:25      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This months WIRED has an article on this. (yeah I know, I'm lame for still reading hardcopy)

What bell south wants to do is charge large internet companies (google, yahoo) to get priority in sending thier information over the net. This means your personal web pages bit have to wait in line while the bits for CNN's homepage get the right of way.

This has many faces to it.

Some people say this is simply thier right. Other businesses have "premium" services for people with more money.

Some people say this is like a "protection racket". IF Yahoo pays for the service, google has to also to stay in business.

Some people say that the internet should be the great equalizer. That the little pages are as important as the big pages and if you start giving priority to only the big companies, the the content of the internet will have fewer contributers and be poorer for it.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
The Mu
Maximum Newbie
Member # 5173

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted May 23, 2006 12:40      Profile for The Mu   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure what to think, as I can't find a non-biased site.

My personal experience, though, is that "government + internet = BAD".

Posts: 17 | From: Definitely not in your general vicinity | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 23, 2006 13:16      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Mu:
I'm not sure what to think, as I can't find a non-biased site.

My personal experience, though, is that "government + internet = BAD".

In general I agree. Also, I agree with "government regulation of bussiness is bad" as the monopolies over who is able to provide a pipe in an area is set by city contracts for leans on public and private land to run the cables... That means that "SBC Yahoo!", Bell, AT&T, amd TimeWarner-AOL-WHOEVERTHEYBOUGHTTHISWEEK have local government awarded monopoly. In most places in the US you have precious few inexpensive choices and most of choices are through the same two Giants.

The idea here is to artifically fix the free market of the web in one regard because of another place where the free market is broken. If there was enough compition in the field of broadband providers such meausers would fix themselves. I mean who wants a service where your traffic to sites you often go to is intentionally slowed down so that other's traffic to "prefered services" are allowed through, a provider where the STMP port is blocked (like it is through my service provider *GRUMBLE GRUMBLE*), or where in order to Voice over IP you have to use your ISP's Voice over IP.

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
littlefish
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 966

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 23, 2006 13:33      Profile for littlefish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, this won't explain it any, but in the recent weeks people have been posting wied videos, so here's mine:

Net neutrality explained by ninja.

Posts: 2421 | From: That London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted May 23, 2006 13:47      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For what it's worth, my general take on it is this:

I pay a certain fee per month for a 1.5 Mb/s connection. If my provider joins into the tiered internet idea and I go to a site that hasn't paid the new fee, I no longer get what I'm paying for, but I'm still paying for it.

With network neutrality, I get what I'm paying for.

The only argument that I've seen to support the ISP getting more money is that the cost of providing bandwidth has gone up. If that is the case, however, the consumer of that bandwidth should be the one to decide whether to bear that cost or reduce their bandwidth in favor of less expensive access.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 24, 2006 00:18      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is anouther interesting idea to add to the many on this page.

People pay ISP's for access to content on the internet. So shouldn't companies like google be charging the ISP's so that thier customers can access the search engines. Because right now Google, yahoo, and CNN provide the ISP's with the ability to make money. So shouldn't Google be charging the ISP's instead of the other way around?

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 24, 2006 00:48      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
Here is anouther interesting idea to add to the many on this page.

People pay ISP's for access to content on the internet. So shpouldn't companies like google be charging the ISP's so that thier customers can access the search engines. Because right now Google, yahoo, and CNN provide the ISP's with the ability to make money. So shouldn't Google be charging the ISP's instead of the other way around?

SHHHH!!! Don't give them any ideas!!
[thumbsdown] [shake head]

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ooby
Highlie
Member # 2603

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted May 24, 2006 11:14      Profile for ooby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any effort to charge on top of the fees users pay to connect to the internet (whether they be you, me, or google) is double dipping.

--------------------
"haven't you ever wondered if there's more to life than being really, really, rediculously good looking?"

Posts: 680 | From: South Jersey | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
lookingblue
Single Celled Newbie
Member # 5189

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted May 26, 2006 00:26      Profile for lookingblue         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
OK, this won't explain it any, but in the recent weeks people have been posting wied videos, so here's mine:

Net neutrality explained by ninja.

"A wall mad out the shredded first amendment"
(best line in the short)

We won a small victory in the house of representatives today!

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060525NetNeutralityScoresAWin.html

keep up the conversation and pass the word along. [Wink]

this war is far from over, its just beginning.

Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time  
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam