I hope this isnt old news here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

I just read about this at www.pvponline.com savetheinternet

I'm not a paranoid kind of person, but this has me deeply concerned.
Acts like COPE threathen the existence of sites just like Abandonia.

Get involved, spread the word

erm Feck the what?

well I suppose internet is allready buildt with the idea of "network neutrality", maybe not absolutely but to a very high degree.
and I have to ask how does [lack of?] network neutrality threaten abandonia in any reasnable way?
and lastly what do you propose we do about it.

P.S.
in short network neutrality is the concept that a network (in our case the internet) has to both treat all it's users equaly (in terms of data transfer priority) and allow connection from any one point of the net to any other.

Well here's how I understand it: You're ISPs pretty much want to regulate the internet under their control, and they want to accomplish this by deciding what content is or is not available to you. And the content they choose may be decided by whether or not a website decides to pay for their services. Say Google(for exampl sake)doesnt pay for the ISP services, well that ISP can slow down your access to google to a crawl, or just revert you to a competiting search engine, without your permission.
What to do?
It sounds lame, but use your voice, tell everyone else around the web, mostly inform your senator/representative that this is a terrible bill.
I dont trust the Telecomm companies, especially if they promised each website to be charged no more than a buck.

Then you choose another ISP. Called the power of the consumer.

Exactly what I was going to say

he seems to use the same expressions and examples (thank god not the same text) as the site he provided. I say he's barinwashed. :whistle:
seriosuly though, allowing market to decide what is right is the right thing to do, jou just have to remmber that you are part of it too (and like has been said times and times before- if you opose something, don't support it with your money).

...and this is called racketeering, plain and simple. It artificially harms -- for example -- Google's business due to no fault of Google. It's been illegal for a long, long time. Your proposed solution shifts the burden to the consumer, which is ridiculous. I'm a Libertarian and even *I* don't suggest that the free market is the solution to organized crime.

<!--QuoteBegin-McGroin
You're ISPs pretty much want to regulate the internet under their control, and they want to accomplish this by deciding what content is or is not available to you.[/quote]
That's not entirely true. By being able to restrict access to certain things a provider loses it's common carrier status, a gamble which no major ISP is stupid enough to take. What they are talking about, however, is "prioritizing" certain web properties over others (by degrading access to *everything* unprioritized). What it breaks down to, really, is that the ISPs don't care about control; rather, they care about double-charging service providers such as Google (once for the upstream bandwidth or peering and then again for priority access).

yup, sure did, heck i'm not very good at paraphrasing should've just copy and pasted.

nope. Just happen to believe the internet is doin just fine, and regulation would just muck things up. So I've taken a stand on the matter, does that bother you?

Where has your cynicism gotten you today?

Exactly what I was going to say [/b][/quote]
For those who don't like alot of words, here's the quick sum up of what follows:

You have no idea how bad an idea it is to think that you can sit on your recliner and think your money will talk for you. You stand to lose everything you value with this mind set.

You guys don't seem to realize that what you're saying here is pretty laissez faire. I'd also be so bold as to say you probably don't understand the implications of what you're talking about.

Laissez faire is the idea that the system will control itself. Remember the depression? "Which depression", you ask? THE DEPRESSION. The "great" one. Everyone thought that some invisible hand would guide the system to correct the developing problems that was threatening America's economic system and that eventually everything would get better. But things just got worse and worse. In the end it took some major intervention to bring America out of it. Intervention that is constantly keeping America teetering on the edge of ruin that if we had our own way we'd go crashing towards like a dog in heat on the closest available leg.

If one business does it, and another gets data telling them it's a good idea, even if (and especially if) it really isn't, it doesn't matter. It will spread like pet rocks and before you can say, "let's talk about this for a sec," every major ISP will use it. You will be unable to find a free ISP without major inconvenience to you. I'm talking the sort of inconvenience that most people just aren't willing to overcome. In other words enough people will be willing to live with it that it will endure. Sorry. Game over. It's a part of life now. You've just been slapped by that invisible hand you thought would help you out.

For better or worse, it's nearly impossible to get a business to drop something they've taken the time to invest in without major, nearly unmendable financial downturn or legal intervention. Once they get an idea in their collective heads, we're stuck with it. A few examples of bad ideas that we're living with that should hit close to home: Video game companies having to purchase shelf space. StarForce. Copy protection in general (it just gets cracked anyways). Subervisive data collection (ie spyware). Etc. Those are just in the video game industry.

So don't just sit on your keister and think you can hop ISPs and change the world. This thing has got to be nipped in the bud. Do something and do it now. It doesn't take long to write your congress person and/or senate representative. Let the people who can do something know that this is and must remain unacceptable. Righting wrongs is not a passive process.

If you oppose something, stand in opposition to it.

There will always be a ISP who will understand you profit more with service not with ridiculis limitations like net neutrality. As long as even one Isp understands that. Then they make more money then all the isp's taking advantage of no net neutrality. Seriously think about it!

Thanks! :D

About the topic, I've read a bit about "Network neutrality" in the wikipedia... but that article is too long... so I jumped to the last part:
I don't think that paying a toll for the highways is unfair... it could be unfair if they turn all the roads in highways (with toll)!



:blink: ... I really wonder how much unuseful is this post...

Maybe so, and if everyone flocks to this ISP, what will happen to their prices? Simple supply and demand will make them rise. You'll then be stuck between choosing a system which favours certain websites and paying enormous amounts of cash for your internet connection. And no, a new ISP will not magically appear to fill this gap (a neutral, cheap ISP), as this idea would increase the already high, barriers to entry that a new ISP faces.

Relying on market forces to do your work for you is a very dangerous thing, and a tactic which has consistently failed. Take responsibility for your own well-being.

Im going to pretend to know what you people are talking about by agreeing with Havell :D Ignorance is bliss :rolleyes: :angel:

I still dont get it O_o

What is going to change if they change the internet? Or is this only for US residents? US doenst controle the internet so what are we discussing here?

Gee, I sure hope my barin doesn't get put in the washing machine. I'm all paranoid now. Ahhhh!

Sorry I did the ignorant American thing. I thought there were a larger number of American members here...WRONG. I've been looking at people's profiles now and realising a large number of non-American member. So I apologize.

Even though this only affects the US/Canada/(mexico?) right now, this sets precedent; not judicial precedent but business precedent. This means it can jump the pond/border. If the ISPs here show this earns a profit, you can expect their foreign counter-parts to follow.

I understand that Globalization and the Internet are just 2 of the major factors that are drastically changing our business world. Theyre factors that go hand-in-hand, change something in one (the internet itself) and global business will follow.

This might only affect North America for now, but this is an important issue for everyone.

i have found another video
http://coanews.org/netfreedom
edit:too late

First of all no, USA does not control the internet, but they were the ones who first put it into operation and still have most facilities (per capita) for it.(which is part of my personal interest in this- the less convenient it will be for Microsoft and Amazon to work with american internet the more likely they will open more offices (and create work) in Europe- so for me it's a win-win :max: )

You are aware that Network neutrality is something they are trying to pass in congress now, right? i.e. that US has virtulay no (well there is some, but even your own site says it's bullshythy) legaly requred network neutrality right now.
allso "no" (in fact I like high spirited activists, and messing with them), and "explain".


I came off a bit wrong. I do (moraly, since I don't have any voting power) opose the cancletion of whatever NN they give the americans now, I just don't think ISPs need to be regualted more in this area, rather I see that they need to somehow (possibly through socialistic measures) promote more small ISP . as far as I can tell from what I read USA has about half a dozen of them (plus small fish that resell their bandwidth), I see that as wrong- my country is like a grain of sand compared to USA and we still have 2 (possibly 3, but I think they are using the bandwidth of one of the previous) competing providers.

Quote:

Originally posted by Quintopotere@May 15 2006, 10:35 AM I don't think that paying a toll for the highways is unfair... it could be unfair if they turn all the roads in highways (with toll)!

actulay you've lallready paid your toll (when you paid your bill). following the anlogy you could say they're trying to charge all the Hotels and gas stations near the highway for the right to cater you.
however this anlogy can go no further as it would seem that you will have sveral highways (that don't conect to each other, not normaly anyway) going parallely in most places with different ones letting you use different facilities (and spposely some have higher tolls and allow you access to all of them at no cost to the facilities). :crazy:

<!--QuoteBegin-Havell@May 15 2006, 11:08 AM
Maybe so, and if everyone flocks to this ISP, what will happen to their prices?* Simple supply and demand will make them rise.* You'll then be stuck between choosing a system which favours certain websites and paying enormous amounts of cash for your internet connection.[/quote]
True, but I have to point out that this has positive sides as well : the price of regualr internet conncetion will probably go down (which is good for the end user), while those of us in oposition to the idea will have the oprtunity to still work with "equal" providers.
Besides the struggle to reduce wrong use of internet by emplyees will be helped a little. :tomato:
not that they outweight the bad stuff.

:ot: P.S. Laissez faire aproach works most of the time. as for the occasinal crisis that comes along evey 40-60 years (in accord with the "long waves" theory), that will need special measures. Think of it this way: most of the time the best you can do with a human organism is to leave it alone and let it work on it's own, however when it's serisoly sick you migh need to give it a series of antibiotic shots to send it on the way to recovery, and then, again, the best thing wiil be to let it lie there and eat soup.

actulay you've lallready paid your toll (when you paid your bill). following the anlogy you could say they're trying to charge all the Hotels and gas stations near the highway for the right to cater you.
however this anlogy can go no further as it would seem that you will have sveral highways (that don't conect to each other, not normaly anyway) going parallely in most places with different ones letting you use different facilities (and spposely some have higher tolls and allow you access to all of them at no cost to the facilities). :crazy: [/b][/quote]
Let's see... maybe it's more like they make you pay more depending how fast is your car... in that case the ones using bittorrent are like driving with a truck... :crazy:

Ok, I'm :ot: so I'm stopping to spam in this topic!

there is probably no possibility how to sign the petition if i am not american, is there?=P

surprisingly, no. :blink:

the things you can do (inculding #1- petitions)

OK saw the video and to be honoust this is a non-discusion. Why? becourse if you know that your isp is doing crap like that then you change to another.

The isp's will cut into their own fingers if they do that and they will lose allot of customers.

Ask a ninja what Net Neutrality is

Hahaha

I disagree, I think the opposite would happen, the ISPs who do this are able to undercut those who don't. Those who do not take this course of action will be the ones cutting their fingers. It is simply the nature of the market for ISPs that the lowest priced ISPs are almost always the most popular (the demand is very price elastic, to use an economics term).

Like I said, letting market forces take thier course is very dangerous as there are so many factors to consider and they are so hard to measure.

Also, with regards to the US not controlling the internet, I'm pretty sure that the root servers for the internet are in the US (or something important like that, I don't know much about the details of how the internet works).

Anyway, regardless of this, there will be a "landslide effect". Add to this the fact that many of the msot popular websites are based in the US and this bill becomes a major thing.

I disagree, I think the opposite would happen, the ISPs who do this are able to undercut those who don't. Those who do not take this course of action will be the ones cutting their fingers. It is simply the nature of the market for ISPs that the lowest priced ISPs are almost always the most popular (the demand is very price elastic, to use an economics term)[/b][/quote]
so are you saying the quality of service is not important?

not really. would you rather have a DSL internet for 50$/month (well I don't know- the cost of 100 loafs of bread or something about that price range) or a modem (56kbps or even ISDN) one for free? given you're not a company or anything, just a regular user?
I know what my answer would be... :sneaky:
(given offcourse that the phone is free. In here that just isn't the case, which is why I switched to DSL in the first place).

BTW does anyone know where the "point" is located? and why the internet doesn't emmideitly fall apart when that server is down?

The US does control the internet. It's where it was developed, the US Department of Commerce is the one responsible for the existence of ICANN (and has demonstrated before that it has final say over the "international" body).

The root servers -- which is what were later referred to -- are also all owned and controlled by either the US Government (including the Department of Defense) or US companies (such as VeriSign, ISC, and ICANN). The root servers are the fundamental component of DNS (which I hopefully shouldn't have to explain) and are the ultimate authority. All DNS servers in the world contact one of the root servers to determine how to resolve domains. Even ccTLDs -- most of which are under control of the country to which they are assigned (or a company based in that country) -- are all dependant upon the root servers.

This has been a *major* source of concern lately in the international community with calls to shift control to the UN. While I do appreciate the pressure to internationalize control, this is a situation in which I side with the US fully and completely (at least for the time being). The US has demonstrated that while controlling what is probably the most crucial component of the modern net that they haven't attempted to control it in ways in which other countries would. For example, should control of the net shift to a country such as China or Germany, restrictions based upon laws in those countries could dramatically alter who is allowed to own/operate a domain or what domains are allowed to called/used for/etc (and before I catch flak, the German anti-Nazi law is what I have in mind).

The net works. While this is an important issue, I think it's a case of not fixing something that isn't broken.

Well, I think this may be a definite case of needing a shot of antibodies.

PS. Man this topic is moving fast.

PPS. Ever notice when those two smilies sync up their shouting. It's kinda cool. I hate smileys but here are the two that I'm talking about:
:Titan: :Brain:
See? It's cool when they both have their mouths open at the same time?

I would disagree, laisezz faire is like a sportsman, he works too much, exploits himself, does more harm than needed so he could win the throphey, just when he gets close to the throphey, he overexausths and succumbs...
Laissez faire means over explaoatation of both human and natural resources and creating artificial demand to fuel the economy beyond it's needs which in the end results with a crisis (every 20-30 years not 60 ;))...
Laissez faire is primitive way of handling the economy as it has been proven in history, and is a cause why communism appeared in the first place...
Greed for a better lack of words is not good ;)