Dammit! Congress Fooling With the Internet? Really

[Annie]

From what I can see, probably wouldn't effect me, but certainly would many. I willingly pay quite a bit for speed, but not everyone can-well I really can't, but I'm willing to give other things up.

Bottom line, anyone with a modem and access should be able to surf at will-parents are the ones that should have the responsibility for using filters or monitoring use of minors:

Here's the House link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5252.IH:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.internet09may09,0,4559120.story

Proposed rule changes would tangle the Web
By Michael Socolow
Originally published May 9, 2006
Congress wants to change the Internet.

This is news to most people because the major news media have not actively pursued the story. Yet both the House and Senate commerce committees are promoting new rules governing the manner by which most Americans receive the Web. Congressional passage of new rules is widely anticipated, as is President Bush's signature. Once this happens, the Internet will change before your eyes.

Advertisement
The proposed House legislation, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), offers no protections for "network neutrality."

Currently, your Internet provider does not voluntarily censor the Web as it enters your home. This levels the playing field between the tiniest blog and the most popular Web site.

Yet the big telecom companies want to alter this dynamic. AT&T and Verizon have publicly discussed their plans to divide the information superhighway into separate fast and slow lanes. Web sites and services willing to pay a toll will be channeled through the fast lane, while all others will be bottled up in the slower lanes. COPE, and similar telecom legislation offered in the Senate, does nothing to protect the consumer from this transformation of the Internet.

The telecoms are frustrated that commercial Web sites reap unlimited profits while those providing entry to your home for these companies are prevented from fully cashing in. If the new telecom regulations pass without safeguarding net neutrality, the big telecom companies will be able to prioritize the Web for you. They will be free to decide which Web sites get to your computer faster and which ones may take longer - or may not even show up at all.

By giving the telecoms the ability to harness your Web surfing, the government will empower them to shake down the most profitable Web companies. These companies will sell access to you, to Amazon.com, Travelocity.com and even BaltimoreSun.com, etc. What if these companies elect not to pay? Then, when you type in "amazon.com," you might be redirected to barnesandnoble.com, or your lightning-quick DSL Internet service might suddenly move at horse-and-buggy speed.

It might appear that the direct ramifications of this bill are somewhat obscure. Why should you care, if your Internet fee isn't altered? Or if your Web surfing will (possibly) be only minimally disrupted? (The telecoms understand that completely barring access to certain sites - especially the most popular ones - would be counterproductive.)

You should care because any corporate restriction on information gathering directly counters the original purpose of the World Wide Web.

"Universality is essential to the Web," says its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. "It loses its power if there are certain types of things to which you can't link."

If calling up the Web site of your favorite political commentator takes far longer than surfing to a commercial site, the new laws will have a direct impact on the Web's democratic utility. The proposed laws also facilitate future steps toward corporate censorship. Do you think that the telecoms, under the proposed regulations, would make it easy to visit the Web sites of their disgruntled - or possibly striking - employees?

The proposed new rules have received surprisingly sparse media coverage. The new laws have economic, political and social ramifications. There are several explanations for the silence.

The most probable is simply that because the laws have strong bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, they do not appear particularly newsworthy. COPE has been promoted vigorously in the House by both Texas Republican Joe L. Barton and Illinois Democrat Bobby L. Rush. While a few legislators are attempting to preserve net neutrality - most notably Democratic Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - they are clearly outnumbered.

The history of American telecommunications regulation does not offer a promising model for the future of net neutrality. In the late 1800s, Congress approved of Western Union, America's telegraph monopoly, censoring the Associated Press. The 1934 Communications Act resulted in political discussion over the national airwaves being tightly moderated by CBS and NBC.

Most telecom laws are sold to the public as the "natural evolution" of communications technology. Yet there is no truly natural evolution to our telecommunications laws. Only very rarely is regulation completely ordained by physics or technological limits. More commonly, it emerges from the political process. This is news to many Americans unaware of their own media history.

Many people believe the Internet's decentralized structure guarantees that no company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship - whether by corporate or state interests - simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your screen, it will be too late to complain.

Michael Socolow is an assistant professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine. His e-mail is [email protected].

 

[insein]

Why cant they just leave it alone? Government should have zero part in most things that it does but it should have ZERO business in the internet. The internet is global and no government entity should be controlling it. Its the last realm of freedom on this planet. If we allow government to get its claws into it, its all over.

 

[Annie]

Why cant they just leave it alone? Government should have zero part in most things that it does but it should have ZERO business in the internet. The internet is global and no government entity should be controlling it. Its the last realm of freedom on this planet. If we allow government to get its claws into it, its all over.

Agreed. After looking a bit more, the real issue will be the 'sites.' The 'biggies' would show up quick, meaning they paid for the correct venues. Sounding a bit 'liberal' here, seems to be a bow to big corporations.

 

[Diuretic]

That's a good point, sadly it's not the case in many countries though, so in a sense the freedom of the internet is denied to many people. You probably know that China censors the internet heavily, totalitarian governments hate the idea of free speech and free thought and the internet is a nightmare for them. My own government has used the protection of children from pornography on the internet as a stalking horse to try and put in legislative controls on content (it failed). When I had my stepson at home and he was under 18 (legal age of majority here) we made sure his internet use was discreetly monitored. I had, on more than one occasion, to cut him off from it when I found inappropriate material on his computer.

 

[insein]

That's a good point, sadly it's not the case in many countries though, so in a sense the freedom of the internet is denied to many people. You probably know that China censors the internet heavily, totalitarian governments hate the idea of free speech and free thought and the internet is a nightmare for them. My own government has used the protection of children from pornography on the internet as a stalking horse to try and put in legislative controls on content (it failed). When I had my stepson at home and he was under 18 (legal age of majority here) we made sure his internet use was discreetly monitored. I had, on more than one occasion, to cut him off from it when I found inappropriate material on his computer.

Which is how it should be with censorship. Parents monitor their kids. Government is not a nanny.

This bill though is complete bullshit. It basically means the government is selling out AGAIN to the big corporations and spitting in the public's face.

 

[Annie]

That's a good point, sadly it's not the case in many countries though, so in a sense the freedom of the internet is denied to many people. You probably know that China censors the internet heavily, totalitarian governments hate the idea of free speech and free thought and the internet is a nightmare for them. My own government has used the protection of children from pornography on the internet as a stalking horse to try and put in legislative controls on content (it failed). When I had my stepson at home and he was under 18 (legal age of majority here) we made sure his internet use was discreetly monitored. I had, on more than one occasion, to cut him off from it when I found inappropriate material on his computer.

I'm familiar with all you wrote. That what has been the strength of US internet, really anything goes. Some of it is sick, sick, sick. I teach my kids at school, at home a long time ago, to 'get out' as soon as you see 'sick.' They do get it.

Is there porn? Oh yea. Is there satanic worship and glorification? Yes.

Is there religious wonderland for Christians? Yes. For Wiccans? Yes. For Islamics? Yes. For Jews? Yes.

Are there numerous uplifting sites for agnostics? Yes. Buddhists? Yes.

We have it all. Why would we want Congress to screw it up? I don't.

 

[P&CA admin]

[/b]

Which is how it should be with censorship. Parents monitor their kids. Government is not a nanny.

This bill though is complete bullshit. It basically means the government is selling out AGAIN to the big corporations and spitting in the public's face.

Here...here...*raises a glass of something*
I agree with this statement 100%...

 

[007]

[/b]

Which is how it should be with censorship. Parents monitor their kids. Government is not a nanny.

This bill though is complete bullshit. It basically means the government is selling out AGAIN to the big corporations and spitting in the public's face.

True. The government doesn't give a damn about the people. The bottom line with them is the dollar.

 

[Mr. P]

Do you folks remember the extreme left spouting “Be afraid, be very afraid” in regard to the Government terrorist attack warnings? Yes.

Well, I am afraid now, very afraid, not of the terrorist but of my own Government!
Why? Because they have a track record of policy action that only benefits BIG BUSINESS and/or the Government (IMO).
Gawd I hate to say it, but it’s true, screw the people, ya know who loves ya!

My case:

Zero action on open boarders which benefit big business by providing cheap labor, but do nothing to secure the Country.

Zero Tax reform....It would help everyone in the Country.

Zero Social Security reform....It would help the Country.

Bankruptcy reform....DID NOT benefit the people, but sure does benefit the credit card companies (BIG BUSINESS), who after years of trying finally found an administration to put it to us!
(BTW, this has backfired on them. Losses were 1%, now I hear they are 7%. Had your interest rate increased lately?)

The Old folks drug program. DID not help the Country, but the politicians!


The Port deal......Geeeezzzzz

Now the internet? Control for the benefit of BIG business, and the Government, I’m afraid.

Now I see this! AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the National Security Agency program...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/nsa.phonerecords.ap/

Yeah, I’m afraid, VERY afraid! And VERY PISSED OFF!

 

[dilloduck]

Do you folks remember the extreme left spouting “Be afraid, be very afraid” in regard to the Government terrorist attack warnings? Yes.

Well, I am afraid now, very afraid, not of the terrorist but of my own Government!
Why? Because they have a track record of policy action that only benefits BIG BUSINESS and/or the Government (IMO).
Gawd I hate to say it, but it’s true, screw the people, ya know who loves ya!

My case:

Zero action on open boarders which benefit big business by providing cheap labor, but do nothing to secure the Country.

Zero Tax reform....It would help everyone in the Country.

Zero Social Security reform....It would help the Country.

Bankruptcy reform....DID NOT benefit the people, but sure does benefit the credit card companies (BIG BUSINESS), who after years of trying finally found an administration to put it to us!
(BTW, this has backfired on them. Losses were 1%, now I hear they are 7%. Had your interest rate increased lately?)

The Old folks drug program. DID not help the Country, but the politicians!


The Port deal......Geeeezzzzz

Now the internet? Control for the benefit of BIG business, and the Government, I’m afraid.

Now I see this! AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the National Security Agency program...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/nsa.phonerecords.ap/

Yeah, I’m afraid, VERY afraid! And VERY PISSED OFF!

Big business RUNS the government---why aren't people screaming about all the data that big business collects on private Americans?

 

[Mr. P]

Big business RUNS the government---why aren't people screaming about all the data that big business collects on private Americans?

Donno why, too dumb maybe? They only get what they need from me, nothing more.

 

[007]

Donno why, too dumb maybe? They only get what they need from me, nothing more.

I was born in 1955 Mr. P. I feel lucky I've enjoyed simpler times, for what they were, comparitively to now. I still feel as though I was born 150 years to late.

But when I'm out and about, especially like shopping, and I see AAALLLLLL these mothers with 2, 3, 4, and sometimes MORE kids in tow, I think to myself, just what in the hell kind of world are these poor little slobs going to have to live in, and WHY do people feel the NEED to PUT THEM THROUGH IT? I feel sorry for them. Honestly, I wonder what makes people feel the need to have kids today, besides just "carrying on the family name".

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Honestly, I wonder what makes people feel the need to have kids today, besides just "carrying on the family name".

Perhaps to procreate and further the human race? :

 

[insein]

Perhaps to procreate and further the human race? :

Some people need to lose their procreatin' priveleges.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Some people need to lose their procreatin' priveleges.

I agree. Just giving Pale some shit.