Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Net Neutrality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bjd392
    replied
    Re: Net Neutrality

    Seems a little ironic that this was introduced as Amendment number 404 prior to becoming H.Amdt.80.

    Leave a comment:


  • matapule
    replied
    Net Neutrality - this is not good news

    Regardless of your political leanings, this is not good news for those of us who enjoy free and open Internet who, I presume, are the posters on HT. I find it hard to believe that the majority in the US House are truly representing the "will of the people." This is a very dark and ominous day for democracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jewlipino
    replied
    Re: Net Neutrality

    Nice.... She's at Kailua beach park too! Best beach on the island

    Jewlipino

    Leave a comment:


  • mel
    replied
    Re: Net Neutrality

    The Beachwalks Lady has a good clip on this subject:

    Save The Internet

    Leave a comment:


  • Jewlipino
    replied
    Re: Net Neutrality

    I've been sending angry letters and emails about this to our reps for about 6 months now. Basically my position is that the Internet was developed using government funds (see ARPAnet) and thus is a public good, a commons if you will. Basically all these telecom companies are making fantastic profits from the existence of this commons, but want more and to do so they need to make it cease being a commons. So eliminate net neutrality and you'll find quickly that in order to view a east-coast website from Hawaii you may need to pay several tolls in order to get there as you may have to pass through the trunk-lines of a couple different telecoms in the process. Sure people like me will find a way to spoof the system so I can still roam free, but the days of the freewheeling wild-west Internet will be OVER. If this is really such an issue I propose a different solution:
    In order to reclaim part of the original data-sharing functions of the internet academic and research institutions created Internet 2 based on the Abilene Backbone so that there would be a high-speed conduit using advanced internet protocols that is basically inaccessible for commercial purposes. If telecoms want to control access to their networks so badly let them invest in Internet3, which would be like Internet2 but commerce oriented and with identity tracking, access control, etc.. Then there would be the Internet for government, non-commercial websites (the whole thing with Internet suffixes is mixed up anyway Hawaii Threads has a .com designation although it is only loosely commercial in that it has ads on its website...), and P2P, FTP and other types of file-sharing, no access or identity control, ultimately a rather insecure environment; anyone wishing to be on the network would be allowed just like todays Internet, at low rates that reflect the non-commercial nature of it. Then there would be Internet 2 as noted above, no need to mess with it. Then Internet 3 which would be access-controlled with built in security, (this can drastically decrease the cost of doing business over the internet as the network security requirements are quite costly on an individual basis, one of the main reasons for the high cost is the fact that the basic Internet was never built to be secure), and it's primary purpose would be to service commercial entities and facilitate secure data transfers, a great big online shopping mall, which is what the telecoms are drooling all over anyway. The Feds can force telecoms to match Internet capacity to match that of Internet3 as the cost of doing business, with the condition that the capacity of the current Internet cannot be reduced to create a secured commercial Internet. It's a lot like how taxes on television and cable goes to funding public programming, but on a much grander and equal scale. Then we have the commons, academic and research, and commerce covered with networks that fit the unique requirements of their spheres of influence. So you have a choice when you go online shopping, you can use the wild and unsecure Internet or use the secured, designed for shopping, Internet3. All the McPeople will probably use Internet 3, but for those of us who want an open and flexible environment the real deal will be available.

    Jewlipino
    Last edited by Jewlipino; June 13, 2006, 03:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LikaNui
    replied
    Re: Net Neutrality

    Originally posted by pzarquon
    Anyone know how our Representatives voted on the matter? Case in particular?
    In the always-informative Ian Lind's blog today he writes:

    "An email yesterday from MoveOn.org asked its supporters to thank Rep. Ed Case for his vote for internet neutrality.
    "Last week, the House of Representatives dealt a blow to Internet freedom—voting to gut Net Neutrality and give companies like AT&T and Verizon more control over what you see and do online.
    "But your representative, Ed Case, voted to protect Internet freedom and deserves our thanks.
    "Case and Rep. Neil Abercrombie both supported a net neutrality amendment, which failed to garner sufficient votes, but Abercrombie then voted in favor of the resulting bill while Case remained in the "no" column."

    Leave a comment:


  • pzarquon
    replied
    Re: Net Neutrality

    The House rejected a Net Neutrality amendment (linked here, offered by Markey, Eshoo, Boucher and Inslee) to COPE (H.R. 5252), largely along party lines. Anyone know how our Representatives voted on the matter? Case in particular?

    Leave a comment:


  • Linkmeister
    started a topic Net Neutrality

    Net Neutrality

    Net Neutrality is the idea that the Internet should remain equally accessible to all, not just those with enough cash to pay for it. From Save the Internet:
    Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.
    There's plenty more about this issue at the Save the Internet site above.

    This measure allowing the telecom companies to charge more has already passed the House. However, it now moves to the Senate, where some Senators have already expressed doubts. It begins this week in the Commerce Committee, and Senator Inouye is Co-Chair of that Committee.

    If you want to keep the Internet the way it is and not have to pay higher prices to get your website in full view of all users, go to Senator Inouye's website, click the contact button (under "Offices") and send him a note. I think he's already predisposed to vote with the small guys, but it can't hurt to ask him to do so. Be sure you use a Hawaii address; Congresspeople pay more attention to their own constituents than they do to "outsiders."
Working...
X