publicknowledge.org — Do you care about your freedom to surf wherever you want to on your current service provider? If yes then be aware what your service provider could do or is already doing to limit or cut off your access to certain sites.
Apr 30, 2006 View in Crawl 4
waterdragonMay 1, 2006
In deference to the almighty and unstoppable digg-effect, maybe we should digg to the front page sites that we DON'T LIKE! /find mirrorMeawhile, I would hope some of the haxxor/coder types among us are looking into a workaround, 'cause it is likely that Net Neutralty may not survive the constant assault on every kind of freedom and justice for all except the few, the corporate owners. It seems like, once again, a more direct approach is needed to change anything, when 'asking your congressman' just isn't effective any more.
waterdragonMay 1, 2006
You silly! Unless you are going to build your own infrastructure by running new wires all over the US, you won't be able to guarantee a thing! It's a subtle point, that maybe some still don't get. This thing is about ownership/control of the physical network -- that US taxpayers already paid for, and OWN!
veteranrangerMay 1, 2006
I'm going on a little personal explanatory campaign.. at least i'll get the people at high school talking about itICQ/MSN link to the video.. ( at least those of em who speak viable english)You should do it too.. blog the digg story, tell people about it.Even though when it comes to legislation, I live in Israel, and I'm not sure about the laws regarding net neutrality here.I suppose the least I can do is spread the word.
ryancowardinMay 1, 2006
It's called a conflict of interests. In a perfect world we'd have more than two realistic choices for our Internet connections. In a perfect world the people who provided Internet access would have that as their core business. But we don't live in a perfect world. I can either pay for a phone line and then pay again for my broadband DSL or I can pay about the same as both for broadband Cable. And neither of those industry's core business is providing Internet. Their vested interests rest in areas where the Internet, finally, offers competition. Voice communication and content distribution, respectively. I pay for my Internet connection - I should be able to use what I've already paid for in any legal fashion I want. I should get what was advertised and what I paid for: unlimited Internet access up to 1.5mb. And the websites and services I use, who already pay a great deal for their own Internet connections, should not have to pay again for me to utilize them.Anything else borders on socialistic... if not outright colliding with it. What's next, bread bakers being able to tell me what mustard I can or cannot put on my bread? Or maybe Toyota telling me I can only use Exxon gasoline because Exxon was willing to pay them but Shell wasn't. Or how bout Blockbuster telling me what DVD players I am allowed to play the movie I rented in; I hear Sony's willing to be extorted... until, of course, Blockbuster starts selling their own DVD players, then everyone else is shut out.
causticnoiseMay 1, 2006
Geekee,The US has Net Neutrality at present, yes, but the whole issue is ensuring it remains neutral. Those other countries have laws to keep it intact, while the US does not. Furthermore, its legislators recently voted down a Net Neutrality bill [ <a class="user" href="http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6065465.html?tag=nefd.top">http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6065465.html?tag=nefd.top</a> ]. Beyond that, given the track record and public statements made by the telcos and their CEOs, they are looking to sap the American internet customers beyond the inflated rates we're already paying.And you're forgetting that the government DOES subsidize the internet through it's dealings with the telcos [ <a class="user" href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_F.shtml">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_F.shtml</a> ]. And eliminating competition through Congressional maneuvering [ <a class="user" href="http://www.consumersvoice.org/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-011403B">http://www.consumersvoice.org/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-011403B</a> ] can be better than any subsidy to a Bell. It's a telco's dream, one they they're willing to spend $60 MILLION in lobbying costs ALONE to get their way [ <a class="user" href="http://techsearch.cmp.com/blog/archives/2006/04/att_and_verizon_1.html">http://techsearch.cmp.com/blog/archives/2006/04/att_and_verizon_1.html</a> ]. The way in which they discriminate with their monopolistic powers is pretty low as well [ <a class="user" href="http://www.broadbandeverywhere.org/Resources/WhatOthersAreSaying.ashx">http://www.broadbandeverywhere.org/Resources/WhatOthersAreSaying.ashx</a> ]. Though, I wouldn't mind seeing links on the information you refer to.The idea that Net Neutrality is a bad thing surpasses the level of laughability. To me, the notion that we shouldn't pursue it with all our best efforts is tantamount to trying to get someone fall asleep so the wolves can get in. "Shhh, the wolves are nice. Don't worry. Everything'll be fine. Just, just go to sleep. Close your eyes. Come on. Shhh." If we don't work towards Net Neutrality and the future of the internet in America is placed in the incompetent and unscrupulous hands of the major telcos, we will regret it.
osbjmgMay 1, 2006
breakfastpants - Your University is likened to a parking lot with it's own rules and markings on the road. That is different than the highway (of which there is only 1) being sold out and the highway authority charging based on the speed you travel.Of course this sounds a lot like a toll road, but with a toll road, there are other routes. When all the top tier providers implement this you now have a toll road everywhere you go...