What you'll see if NET NEUTRALITY doesn't pass

Umm doubtfull.

More of a scare tactic I think.

In my opinion, you are probably on the money.... I saw an article recently about Cox blocking P2P traffic if I remember correctly.

Moreover, Yellowpages.com has been selectively disconnecting websites they don't approve of.

I'm not sure the "unfiltered access" will be an option as they will want to maximize their "partners" traffic and limit bandwith problems.

wtf is that shit? 60 websites? haha

Thats exactly what theyd want to be doing. If that shit ever happens its Tyler Durden time on the telecoms.

Yep. Using the cable model on the Net.

i don't think there's enough people that understand how hard the big company's are pushing for this. lots of political pockets are being lined in one way or another.

I don't think so. Big telecom companies are really fighting hard for this. They aren't innovative anymore so want to profit off the innovation and creativity of others. This way they can start charging you to use video sites, email services, etc. They can cut deals with "preferred sites". This is huge money for the telcos and how they'll butt their way into the loop.

it should be interesting.

This has gone on for years though in the print product. It was up to each directory publisher's discretion whether or not to allow escort ads. When they do, they don't allow real pictures to be used... thus the ever-so-famous drawn ads.

It would be FUCKED UP if the Internet turns out like how RADIO turned out. Radio used to be open until the FCC started apportioning radio frequencies.

Yup.. Google is fighting this hard as well - since they stand to lose the most out of no neutrality.

Hmmm...trying to turn the internet into cable TV. That's a bit disconcerting. I suppose, though that as long as I have options on how to connect to the internet, I can get around any filtering that cox tries to impose.

In a way, this would be like reverting back to AOL before they actually had a web browser. I think the marketplace has shown that unrestricted access is preferable to AOL filtered content.

I guess the real question is...how many people are going to switch to sattelite, or opt for the "unrestricted access" option?

From a corporate standpoint this concept makes sense...why not restrict access, and then charge more for less restrictions. This is obviously how cable tv works.

There is one big difference that might stop this from happening...Most people don't give a crap what is playing on channel 929. Their viewing is pretty much self-limited to a few channels and shows. On the other hand, when I search for something on google, I don't want to see narrowly filtered results. I want to see every website that has information on Ben Franklin...or Dam Building...or The Great Wall of China.

Hopefully the marketplace will never let this happen. The market seems to want less restrictions...not more.

Great, it will be a step 10 or 20 years backwards in time. It will be like all of being on AOL again. Only this time, there will be no pesky, independent ISPs to run off to.

Keep kidding yourself into thinking that.

The marketplace wants freedom, equal access and no restrictions. corporations and the governments that they control would love to segregate the internet, break it up into a land of virtual toll roads where everyone deposits a quarter at every network boundary they encounter.

Freedom wont protect itself, it needs someone to protect it. The same is true with the marketplace. You mark my words, if this is allowed to go through, I dare say it will be one of the most significant moments in history you or I will live through. It will mark the exact moment in time that the human race begins its long journey back into the stone ages.

oh no! that sucks

A very real possibility:

The piracy issue is going to force the internet into the cable model of content delivery if the piracy isn't stopped soon. The media industry giants will force the issue to protect their intellectual property rights.

http://www.techcomedy.com/calls/aolsucks.mp3

i got thinking, if they do pass so they can restrict content, ya know, force you to pay more to view a certian site, so technically can't that site sue because they are charging someone else to see their content that they use to make money?


also if it does pass, all the hackers will come up with a way around it

That's definitely one part of the equation

you sir are correct!

Welcome to SCARE TACTICS 101.

None of the providers have suggested anything of the sort as pictured in that fake scare ad. The reality is they are looking at certain "up" features (such as high speed movie downloads, live shows, etc) as an upsell. To do that may require that networks are configured differently, allowing assured bandwidth to those paying more, and "what's left" for general users. None of them have suggested for a second that you wouldn't be able to access websites. Total fucking bullshit politics. Please link to anywhere that this is discussed by someone from a telcom.

Beyond that, net neutrality is a horseshit expression that too many people are using to cover all sorts of shit that shouldn't be there.

Example, Comcast starts blocking out certain bits of P2P in order to preserve network resources for regualr surfers. Suddently, the net neutrality people are all over it, saying that blocking anything is taking away net neutrality. Fucking idiots. Neutrality is to allow you to receive anything - but it isn't about allowing you to use high levels of bandwidth to provide service to others. You have a private connection, not a public or commercial connection.

I have had friends bitch to me about the lack of net neutrality that lead to the shutting down of Oink. Like they have any fucking clue what they are talking about. People have been brainwashed into thinking that illegal file sharing is some sort of Net Neutrality Right that they will lose if this important legislation isn't passed.

End consumers won't stand for it either. Plus, in markets where there is only one high speed carrier (say cable but no DSL or vis-versa) the FCC in the US would be loath to allow a monopoly to dramatically raise rates and lower services without serious levels of justification. Given a choice between a restricted access and an open access, most would go for open access. So if the cable provider goes to some sort of blocking scheme, the local DSL company just goes "all of the internet wide open" and the cable guys are fucked.

It doesn't make sense, so what's the issue?