A grim day for the internet

[Glenn565]

The following is not going to be pretty. And it affects everybody. Yes, Everybody

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081 ... &subj=zdnn

Net Neutrality Laws got rejected by The House of Representatives. What does this mean to you? Well, in the words of Tim Buckley of Alt-Ctrl-Del fame:

Basically this means that the large companies like Verizon and Comcast would have, at their discretion, the right to choose what web content loads quickest for you. And guess how that decision is made? That's what, whatever web content makes them the most money. And if a website doesn't pay their exorbitant fees? It could load up slower than dial-up. Or not at all.

Dreamt of starting an online business? Opening a t-shirt shop online, or putting our your artwork for others to see? Under this legislation you can kiss that goodbye, unless you're willing to fork over cash to the big communications companies so they'll allow your stuff to be seen.

Unless websites pay up to the big boys in telecomunications, they can grind site traffic to a halt. This affects everybody, from Yahoo all the way down to, yes, Ozy and Millie. Granted, this still has to pass The Senate, but i'm not very hopefull about it.

And the worst part? It's being backed by Republicans.

[CodeCat]

Funny. I always knew that the American government would be the ones to screw over the last trace of equality in the world. Aw well, at least this only affects the US, so anyone sensible will just get hosted elsewhere.

[Muninn]

Yeah I heard about this all the way back in April.

Here's a site about this situation.

[Niko123000]

*Please Note that this user is Screaming in his room words that would make Jesus Blush*

WTF, THIS IS BULL<CENSOR>!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW COULD THAT <CNESOR> LAW BE REJECTED??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS [CENSOR THE NEXT 15 WORDS]

[Foxhound]

of course, this will screw me and any other American royally. hopefully someone will come up with a lawsuit to get this whole thing changed

ISP blocks you and a bunch of other sites? Class-action lawsuit. There doesn't seem to be any other way.

[Tum0spoo]

*sits and prays*

[Niko123000]

*Eye twitching*

They need an Eye twich emote.

[is screaming words thaty would make god wet his robe.]

[DesertFoxCat]

I'm hoping this site helps, if things get really bad.

[Niko123000]

From the quick skimming I did, that sounds a lot like ATunnel[/url]

[Glenn565]

Funny. I always knew that the American government would be the ones to screw over the last trace of equality in the world. Aw well, at least this only affects the US, so anyone sensible will just get hosted elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this isn't the case. as another person on another fourm I go to said:

Basically, there are a couple of "big ISPs" in the world, which are the major US telcom companies. SBC, Verizon, yadda yadda. These big telcoms then lease their massive, effectively worldwide networks of fiber optic and copper to subsidiaries and smaller, other companies who use these pipes to make non-corporate ISPs and things like that. Your local, mom and pop ISP? Still gonna potentially get screwed by this. There would be no other "reliable" ISPs because the traffic still has to go through the big telcoms.

Remember when I said this affects everybody? Yeah, thats in the world, too. Well, the major internet using countries, anyway.

[Tavis]

Net Neutrality is more or less trying to follow the terms of Quality of Service in a fair manner. Unfortunately, this is a -very- difficult thing to do, even if you are seeking fairness. So far, the issue of "Net Neutrality" is about trying to determine who has the right of way though a particular part of the Internet.

Large companies are for trying to allow a better quality of service for their own subscribers; i.e. the people who are paying them to build and upgrade their networks, such as people who pay extra for a dedicated DSL line over a standard dial-up connection. THIS is what the companies are trying to allow, not some heavy-handed effort to silence someone with an otherwise perfectly good physical link to the internet. Without the ability to charge more for a dedicated connection with a higher bandwidth, no company would wish to investigate these higher technologies and later bring the cost down for everyone else.

Proponents of Net Neutrality wish to argue that these companies will censor content without some legislation explicitly forbidding it. The thing is, users of the Internet have been very capable of circumventing virtually every form of censorship out there, and well, I don't think this is going to put a dent into that effort. Maybe I am wrong, maybe there will be some unfair marketing practices that will force someone's broadband connection to falter with a foreign VoIP service, but that is a different case entirely and will be handled as such.

[likeafox]

Between the TCPA and all this other stuff, the future of people's rights on their own computer is _apparently_ none. But that is a grim outlook. I expect somewhere along the line people will stand up and say enough is enough, and take back their individual freedoms. If not, perhaps that would be the breaking point for a multiple-tiered internet.

On top you may have a capitalist-like internet consisting of all of the TCG compliant computers (with corresponding operating systems and software). It will quickly and effectively connect all of the John Doe consumers to big corperations so they can read their news, email, trade stocks, buy things, and talk on video phones. Content will be restricted because only those with enough money will be able to publish it. It will make Joe consumer happy to know that he won't get any viruses on the internet because all of the content is regulated. And the boss knows with regulated content his employees can't download or share any files illegally.

At the bottom you may have a more liberal interweb made up of systems with imported Chinese computer parts and free operating systems. The freedoms would be similar to how they are today; There are viruses going around and some illegal file sharing. The audience is much smaller, however. With the only significant share of consumers on the trusted grid, there is very little business potential. Open source and freeware dominate the content.

There would certainly be limited connectivity between the top and bottom tiers. Then maybe there would be some tiers inbetween.

The internet is a fast evolving technology. It's going to change, it may be a little, it may be a lot. In the end there isn't a lot you can do, and it will most likely fall in the hands of the big orginizations that run it. The best thing you can do is learn to adapt with it. There will always be freedom to be found. Maybe just not in the same places we see it today.

[CodeCat]

It will only happen if we let it happen. In the end, it's still up to the anonymous person to step up and show the leadership the errors of its ways. Or go down trying.

[Muninn]

Got this from some site(I forget where), things might not become as bad as this but it could follow this path...

Destroying net neutrality could result in;

Discrimination - Phone and cable companies will be able to steer you to web content and services that they own or have exclusive deals with.
Higher costs - If content providers are charged new fees to "ensure" that you can view their sites, they will pass these fees through to consumers like you and small businesses.
Reduced investment - Investors will have little reason to support new, internet-based content and services if there is no guarantee they can even get on the net. Innovation will plummet.
Compromised global competitiveness - The US will lose it's lead in the internet as innovation moves to more fertile, open markets overseas.

But maybe the phone and cable companies will be generous and fair.

And the worst part? It's being backed by Republicans.

That's unfair, there are Democrats backing it too and Republicans against it and some who haven't given a clear answer where they stand yet.

[Muninn]

The TPM net neutrality tally.