Net Neutrality?

[JBeukema]

Companies that own the connections between their customers and the Internet should not be restricted from shaping and managing traffic to provide the services their customers want. I first heard about the concept of net neutrality by an advocate who was miffed at having his torrent downloads slow down.

Exactly.

And if a company suddenly starts charging me to watch MSNBC, and allowing Fox to get through for free, there are already laws in existence to cover that. Not to mention that no one would ever be a customer of said company. Even out in the middle of nowhere there is more competition than that.

PC and her ilk would love that

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, Al Gore invented it.

But on a serious note, yes, it was started up by the military, but the government has basically kept their hands off when it comes to regulation and let it be a free entity. There is no reason to change that, especially with this "net neutrality" plan.

The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.

What?

No ISP has ever chocked off torrents to allow normal users to have bandwidth. No ISP has ever charged anyone more for highspeed access than dial up. No ISP has ever placed a download limit on any account.

What planet do you live on?

And none of those things have anything to do with "Net Neutrality".

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with customer-ISP relations. It has to do with the internet itself, and whether ISPs can charge for content. For instance, Net Neutrality would prevent FOX News from paying an ISP to only allow FOX content - or give it preference in bandwidth.

Without Net Neutrality, the internet will become like Hollywood, or Top 40 radio - controlled by 5 huge corporations who control what websites you can visit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.

What?

No ISP has ever chocked off torrents to allow normal users to have bandwidth. No ISP has ever charged anyone more for highspeed access than dial up. No ISP has ever placed a download limit on any account.

What planet do you live on?

And none of those things have anything to do with "Net Neutrality".

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with customer-ISP relations. It has to do with the internet itself, and whether ISPs can charge for content. For instance, Net Neutrality would prevent FOX News from paying an ISP to only allow FOX content - or give it preference in bandwidth.

Without Net Neutrality, the internet will become like Hollywood, or Top 40 radio - controlled by 5 huge corporations who control what websites you can visit.

Bullshit. That is not happening, and if that is what net neutrality is about it is a complete waste of money and time to prevent the impossible. Even in China, where all internet traffic goers through government servers, p[eople have access to information that is prohibited. That is because the internet, the way it is currently structured, is impossible to control. Our government wants to change that, and whatever reasons they have for that, it is not so that everyone has access to all information available. If it were, they would demonstrate their sincerity by opening access to all information, including the treaty negotiations regarding copyright that are currently top secret.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What?

No ISP has ever chocked off torrents to allow normal users to have bandwidth. No ISP has ever charged anyone more for highspeed access than dial up. No ISP has ever placed a download limit on any account.

What planet do you live on?

And none of those things have anything to do with "Net Neutrality".

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with customer-ISP relations. It has to do with the internet itself, and whether ISPs can charge for content. For instance, Net Neutrality would prevent FOX News from paying an ISP to only allow FOX content - or give it preference in bandwidth.

Without Net Neutrality, the internet will become like Hollywood, or Top 40 radio - controlled by 5 huge corporations who control what websites you can visit.

Bullshit. That is not happening, and if that is what net neutrality is about it is a complete waste of money and time to prevent the impossible. Even in China, where all internet traffic goers through government servers, p[eople have access to information that is prohibited. That is because the internet, the way it is currently structured, is impossible to control. Our government wants to change that, and whatever reasons they have for that, it is not so that everyone has access to all information available. If it were, they would demonstrate their sincerity by opening access to all information, including the treaty negotiations regarding copyright that are currently top secret.

Nice non-sequitor.

So here's my question - you clearly don't know what Net Neutrality is. Why are you so vehemently against it, if you don't know what it is?

As I said before, Net Neutrality would codify the current situation. The government isn't trying to "change" anything - in fact, the aim of Net Neutrality is to keep everything the same as it is now - to prevent a "Ma Bell" taking over the internet.

And if you think it's "impossible" due to the way the internet is "structured" - you're going to have to explain what you mean.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Net Neutrality would require that content providers give equal access to everyone. In other words, if you spent millions of dollars in setting up a site, and wanted to stream your content for free, and I popped in with high resolution video that chocked your servers saying that you are evil and no one should acknowledge your existence, you would not be able to force me, or the people who prefer what I have to say, to pay for the extra bandwidth we are using.

Tell me again why this is a good idea.

None of this post has anything to do with Net Neutrality.

 

[JBeukema]

So... we can't even get a straight answer on what it is?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So... we can't even get a straight answer on what it is?

Because people disagree with Net Neutrality just because the big, bad government is involved, and Glenn told them how bad it was, and no one bothers to actually understand what it is.

 

[Trajan]

The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.

What?

No ISP has ever chocked off torrents to allow normal users to have bandwidth. No ISP has ever charged anyone more for highspeed access than dial up. No ISP has ever placed a download limit on any account.

What planet do you live on?

And none of those things have anything to do with "Net Neutrality".

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with customer-ISP relations. It has to do with the internet itself, and whether ISPs can charge for content. For instance, Net Neutrality would prevent FOX News from paying an ISP to only allow FOX content - or give it preference in bandwidth.

Without Net Neutrality, the internet will become like Hollywood, or Top 40 radio - controlled by 5 huge corporations who control what websites you can visit.

frankly I think its you who has the grave misunderstanding as to whats at stake here.


as to your last comment- so, the television and radio airwaves are controlled by big corps who are feeding you exactly what these entities want you to be fed? you can make the case of mass ownership but you cannot make the case for censorship or favoritism, because, ta daaa the market place won't sit still for it, profit you see? (well except for npr and pbs , but I digress).

Obviously there is a huge disparity in whats available and frankly your comment is a bit of a ideological strawman using the usual, big evil corps ( vs, yes "my " side, the fear of big evil gov.) in spite of the examples above in the first paragraph, in short your evil corp. gig doesn't wash.

And in spite of the fact heavy weights like Google, Comvast, Netflix and Verizon to name several of many are in the pits duking it out, grabbing hair market share or not, the gov. by the very virtue of its self anointed ownership will skew the markets and favors some co's over another......it is inevitable.



the FCC would not be back-dooring this thing if they didn't have to (have you figured out why yet congress has not stepped in? The vote on their 5 person fcc panel is in a week or so, they'll pass it baring some intrusion of sanity.

Breaking News so to speak


FCC chairman to propose plan for net neutrality

By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2010; 12:01


In a statement provided to reporters in advance of Wednesday's announcement, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said he thinks he has "a sound legal basis" to pursue so-called net-neutrality rules that would prevent companies such as Verizon, Comcast and AT&T from blocking or serving up some Web sites faster and at better quality than others.

Last summer, Genachowski said he would move to reclassify broadband as something akin to more heavily regulated telephone service, after a federal appeals court threw the government's position as Web access regulator into question. The court said in April that the FCC had no legal authority to sanction Comcast for blocking files shared through the BitTorrent application.

Broadband companies strongly resisted being reclassified, and now Genachowski has shifted his approach.

"Informed by the staff's additional legal analysis and the extensive comments on this issue over the past year, the proposal is grounded in a variety of provisions of the communications laws, but would not reclassify broadband," Genachowski said.


FCC chairman to propose plan for net neutrality



The Internet is still being developed on the run, allegiances, alignments of technologies , ala-


But trying to make good on a promise for such rules made more than a year ago, Genachowski's proposal appears to strike a compromise between the interests of big network giants such as Verizon Communications and Web giants such as Google and Amazon. The Web companies have urged the FCC to oversee network operators so they don't favor some sites and applications - including their own and those of partners - over others.

The proposal bars the operators of broadband lines into homes from blocking Web sites, applications or any devices that attach to their networks. It would also prevent carriers from "unreasonable discrimination" that would, for example, serve up Comcast's Internet video service Xfinity faster and at better quality than that of rival Netflix.

For wireless networks, the rules are weaker. Mobile carriers such as Sprint Nextel, AT&T and T-Mobile would be prohibited from blocking competing voice and video applications such as Skype, Google Voice or Netflix. But wireless providers wouldn't have the same rules against prioritizing certain applications and sites on their networks like cable and telecom firms.

"Mobile broadband is at an earlier stage of development than fixed broadband, and is evolving rapidly," Genachowski said.


the above is very simplified look at whats at stake and where things are and who wants what, let the marketplace hash it out, the FCC doesn't need to get involved at least not yet.

And don't forget, once the gov. starts regulating, fee,s taxes follow. wake up.


the government should stay the *uck out of it, period.

 

[waltky]

Counter-attack on internet virus...

FBI Could Shut Off Internet for Thousands on March 8 to Eradicate Virus
February 16, 2012 - It’s a scary thought, having the Internet forcibly shut off for you. But it’s just what some Fortune 500 companies and government agencies could face as the Federal Bureau of Investigation tries to get rid of an extremely malicious computer virus.

Krebs on Security reports that the malware — DNSChanger Trojan — infected more than 4 million computes in more than 100 countries thanks to the work of six men who were arrested in Estonia for the crime in Nov. 2011. Gizmodo reports that the virus causes the user to be sent to fraudulent websites by changing DNS settings and even prevents them from visiting security sites that could help rid them of the virus.

In the United States, a half a million computers were reportedly infected with a security firm finding at least one infection in half of the Fortune 500 companies and 27 government agencies. What’s to be done? Krebs on Security reports that any computer still infected by March 8, 2012, will have Internet service disconnected from it:

“Yes, there are challenges with removing this malware, but you would think people would want to get this cleaned up,” said Rod Rasmussen, president and chief technology officer at Internet Identity. “This malware was sometimes bundled with other stuff, but it also turns off antivirus software on the infected machines and blocks them from getting security updates from Microsoft.”

Computers still infected with DNSChanger are up against a countdown clock. As part of the DNSChanger botnet takedown, the feds secured a court order to replace the Trojan’s DNS infrastructure with surrogate, legitimate DNS servers. But those servers are only allowed to operate until March 8, 2012. Unless the court extends that order, any computers still infected with DNSChanger may no longer be able to browse the Web.

MORE

See also:

UNITED STATES v. VLADIMIR TSASTSIN, ET AL.

The FBI is seeking information from individuals, corporate entities and Internet Services Providers who believe that they have been victimized by malicious software (“malware&#8221 related to the defendants. This malware modifies a computer’s Domain Name Service (DNS) settings, and thereby directs the computers to receive potentially improper results from rogue DNS servers hosted by the defendants.

If you believe you have been victimized in this case, please type your DNS information into the search box below.

More information about DNS settings can be found at www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/november/malware_110911/dns-changer-malware.pdf

Source

Related:

Seven Charged for Infecting 4 Million Computers With ‘False Advertising’ Malware
November 9, 2011 — Internet bandits devised an international scheme to hijack more than 4 million computers in more than 100 countries, manipulating traffic on Netflix, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and other popular websites to generate at least $14 million in fraudulent advertising revenue, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

Six of the seven people named in the indictment unsealed Wednesday are Estonians who are in custody in that country, and prosecutors said extradition was being sought. One Russian remains at large. About 500,000 computers in the United States were infected with malware, including those used by individuals, educational institutions, nonprofits and government agencies like NASA, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara told a news conference.

Bharara called the case the first of its kind because the suspects set up their own “rogue” servers to secretly reroute Internet traffic to sites where they had a cut of the advertising revenue. “On a massive scale, the defendants gave new meaning to the term ‘false advertising,’” Bharara said.

The problem was first discovered at NASA, where 130 computers were infected. Investigators followed a digital trail to Eastern Europe, where the defendants operated “companies that masqueraded as legitimate participants in the Internet advertising industry,” according to the indictment. “Without the computer users’ knowledge or permission, the malware digitally hijacked the infected computers to facilitate the fraud,” the indictment says.

Once their computers were infected, people seeking to visit Netflix, the IRS, ESPN, Amazon and other legitimate sites were redirected to sites where the defendants collected income for each click on an ad, authorities said. The malware and corrupted servers also allowed the defendants to substitute legitimate ads on other websites with replacement ads that earned them more illicit income, they added.

MORE

 

[FactFinder]

Net Neutrality?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So... the idea is to mandate that companies give equal priority to all traffic across their servers?


and....you give all equal priority across your doorstep?

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says it looks like we gettin' ready to go to war with `em again...

U.S. Concerned About Looming Internet Restrictions in Vietnam
June 11, 2012 – As Vietnam’s communist government prepares to impose strict new Internet controls, the U.S. government is warning that the move will threaten freedom of expression and have an adverse commercial impact.

Among the regulations, due to enter into force this month, is one that would force popular social networking services like Facebook and Google to locate servers inside the country and set up a local presence in Vietnam. Another would require all Internet users to use real names and personal details online – in a country where according to the free press advocates at least 19 journalists, bloggers and cyber activists are currently incarcerated for security offenses linked to Internet use. A list of proscribed activities – prohibitions which service providers are expected to enforce – includes such vaguely-defined acts as “dissemination of information which … distorts the reputation of any organization.”

In a document sent to Hanoi’s communication and information ministry, the U.S. Embassy listed some of its concerns with the “Decree on the Management, Provision, Use of Internet Services and Information Content Online.” The document warns that the provisions relating to prohibited actions are ‘broad and vague,” and are “likely to negatively impact individuals’ rights to freedom of expression in Vietnam.” The requirement that service providers agree to coordinate with the Vietnamese authorities to police online activity is also a problem, it says, in part because providers are “unlikely to believe themselves competent in making judgments regarding the legality” of information on their sites under the Vietnamese restrictions.

Expecting companies to filter content – including third-party content – on pain of sanctions if they fail to do so adequately “would be extremely difficult to implement and would impose such prohibitive regulatory burdens that many innovative suppliers simply might not be able to enter the market or, if currently present, might abandon it for other markets.” The proposal that companies like Facebook locate data centers and set up a presence in the country is a particular worry, the embassy document says, since it runs contrary to the current trend of shifting towards “cloud”-based services. “In addition, it is unclear how Vietnam would enforce this requirement, if a social networking site were unable or unwilling to establish a local presence in Vietnam,” it says. “The United States would certainly not endorse blocking such sites, given the availability of other, less trade-restrictive alternatives, such as voluntary codes of conduct.”

A Facebook spokeswoman responded to queries Sunday by saying the company was reviewing the proposed regulations and “working closely with the industry to provide feedback to the Vietnam government on their draft decree.” She confirmed that Facebook does not currently have any operations in Vietnam. Google’s media office did not respond to queries. Viet Tan (the Vietnam Reform Party), a banned Vietnamese opposition group which says it promotes peaceful change to a multiparty democracy, has called the proposals “draconian.” “Like many government directives in Vietnam, the language in this document is vague and ill-defined, leading to multiple interpretations and possible arbitrary implementation by authorities,” it said in an earlier statement, urging foreign companies not to comply.

MORE

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberals are constantly trying to take from those that have something and give it to lazy assholes.

Soon you'll have to share your TV with some poor person since it's unfair you get to watch 2-4 hours of satellite TV at night when that poor person doesn't own a TV.

 

[uscitizen]

The real issue is that they sell more bandwith than they can provide.

 

[P@triot]

So... the idea is to mandate that companies give equal priority to all traffic across their servers?

And people compare this to the 'Fairness Doctrine' and take issue with this why, exactly?

I seem to have missed something.

Yes, yes you have. In fact, you're missing everything...

The push for "Net Neutrality" was by a special interest group ironically named Free Press, whose goal it is to limit America's free press and freedom of speech. Well, the internet as it stands today has provided Americans with more access to more outlets to express themselves than any point in world history. Anyone in America with a computer and an Internet connection can literally say whatever they want any time they want.

So, what is the problem? It seems to me there isn't one if free speech really is your goal. But Free Press isn't about free speech - it's about silencing dissent.

Free Press is an oxymoron started by an oxy-Marxist. His name is Robert McChesney. In addition to co-founding Free Press, he's also the former editor of The Monthly Review. This is a self-proclaimed, independent socialist magazine — an openly Marxist publication (yeah, he sure sounds like a "free press" advocate so far, doesn't he?).

Robert McChesney in his own words:

"Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."

"There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."

The irony of a person with that ideology founding an organization called "Free Press" and then pushing for a policy called "Net Neutrality" (astounding how liberals give such innocent sounding names to such nefarious agenda's).

Now that you know the back ground of the policy and the people behind it, lets look at the policy itself. It's essentially comprised of two parts - Access & Controlling Content.

1.) Access - they believe that everyone is entitled to the same broadband, regardless of their ability to pay for it. A prominent radio and television host made a very astute observation: in the 1800's, the only medium for information was newspapers, but nobody demanded that all people be given access to it, regardless of their ability to pay. In the early 1900's, the only option for live information was radio - but nobody suggested radio's should be given free to everyone. In the 1950's, the best option became tv, and still nobody suggested tv's should be given free to everyone. Why now, with all of these options still available, are the idiot Communists like Van Jones demanding that people be given free internet?

2.) Controlling Content - does anything really need to be said about this? The entire concept of the internet was the sharing of information without restriction. Now, the people who openly call themselves Socialists/Marxists want to control content.

After being educated on what this really is, do you now see the problem?

Read more: 'Glenn Beck': Net Neutrality Pits Free Speech Against Free Press | Fox News