Why does this board not talk Net Neutrality?

[pocketkangaroo]

I see everyone crying over .xxx, 2257, and so on. But no one seems to discuss something that potentially will have a much greater risk of killing this industry, anti-net neutrality regulations. I understand why the board Republicans steer clear of this topic, but it amazes me that others haven't been discussing it more.

Do some of you realize what this could do to the business? Heck, what it will do to any small-mid sized webmaster.

[HizAzPhun]

There have been a few threads on the subject, but they have died quickly, I think because of a lack of understanding of the subject on most webmasters' part. Maybe someone should make a thread ABOUT net neutrality, rather than ABOUT the fact that no one talks about net neutrality on here. Know what i mean? Give us some facts. Scare us into action. That kind of thing!

[Trixie]

Good question.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Let's get the discussion rolling.

Don't assume Republicans are a monolith. We aren't.

[pocketkangaroo]

Well for those who are not familiar with it, I think wiki actually has a pretty solid and unbiased write-up of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

In a nutshell, the big telcom companies want to create a 2-tier internet. Basically faster connections for the sites that pay money and slower for those that don't. It opens up a ton of abuse from censorship, conflicts of interest, and unfair competition.

The scariest part of the whole bill is the morons who are in charge of regulating the net and putting the bills together. Here is a phenomenal Daily Show clip tearing this guy apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhOtl...=ted%20stevens

[pocketkangaroo]

Let's get the discussion rolling.

Don't assume Republicans are a monolith. We aren't.

I don't. But every single Republican did vote in favor of anti-Net Neutrality.

[PSGuru]

The scariest part of the whole bill is the morons who are in charge of regulating the net and putting the bills together. Here is a phenomenal Daily Show clip tearing this guy apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhOtl...=ted%20stevens

Was just going to post that, it's HIGHLY disturbing hearing this guy.

[Kimo]

im worried about it, but i dont know much about it, someone please explain

only info i get is from propaganda commercials on tv blaming google for it

[BVF]

If it happens, I'll make sure I'm in the first class tier..

[pocketkangaroo]

If it happens, I'll make sure I'm in the first class tier..

Who says you will have that option? What if Comcast decides that porn can't be on the first tier? What if the first tier costs so much that it makes your business not profitible?

[HizAzPhun]

Well for those who are not familiar with it, I think wiki actually has a pretty solid and unbiased write-up of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

In a nutshell, the big telcom companies want to create a 2-tier internet. Basically faster connections for the sites that pay money and slower for those that don't. It opens up a ton of abuse from censorship, conflicts of interest, and unfair competition.

The scariest part of the whole bill is the morons who are in charge of regulating the net and putting the bills together. Here is a phenomenal Daily Show clip tearing this guy apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhOtl...=ted%20stevens

Good link, and GREAT but disturbing clip from the Daily Show.

BUMMMPPPP.

[minusonebit]

Bump for this thread. A worthy cause in need of alot more support.

[media]

Because 98% of this board does not comprehend the text of the proposal I assume..

[Linkster]

Mainly because the amendments that have been attempted so far (although the bill is still in committee) have all been dropped when it came to affecting net-neutrality. The bill hasnt made it to the floor of either house in its final form yet (other than the telecomm bill) and all attempts on the floors of both houses to add amendments in to voted bills by the full houses have all been defeated - no congressman in their right mind is going to give the telcos the power over the internet during an election year

[minusonebit]

Mainly because the amendments that have been attempted so far (although the bill is still in committee) have all been dropped when it came to affecting net-neutrality. The bill hasnt made it to the floor of either house in its final form yet (other than the telecomm bill) and all attempts on the floors of both houses to add amendments in to voted bills by the full houses have all been defeated - no congressman in their right mind is going to give the telcos the power over the internet during an election year

Yep, this is why. Congressmen and Congresswomen arent in thier right minds, so passage is very possible now or in the future. And its an example of what prompted my other thread about the United States. Everyone will wait until the eve of the vote to start protesting and by then it will be too late.

[Linkster]

Yep, this is why. Congressmen and Congresswomen arent in thier right minds, so passage is very possible now or in the future. And its an example of what prompted my other thread about the United States. Everyone will wait until the eve of the vote to start protesting and by then it will be too late.

When it actually makes it out of committee - which my personal opinion says will never happen - and comes to one of the houses floors for debate will be when most "special interest" groups start lobbying and fighting - right now there are maybe 12 congressmen that even care one way or the other about this - and some of us are already writing to them

[pocketkangaroo]

When it actually makes it out of committee - which my personal opinion says will never happen - and comes to one of the houses floors for debate will be when most "special interest" groups start lobbying and fighting - right now there are maybe 12 congressmen that even care one way or the other about this - and some of us are already writing to them

The carriers won a 269-152 vote in the House of Representatives, and an 11-11 vote in the Senate Commerce Committee which would have put a ban on new fees.

I think it is closer than many of us think. The carriers are putting a ton of pressure on congress and coming out with massive campaigns to try and persuade the public.

[jayeff]

Everyone will wait until the eve of the vote to start protesting and by then it will be too late.

Ever the optimist huh? Most won't bother to find out what NN is until the day after the vote...

That apart, we're on a hiding to nothing over this issue. The pork barrel potential of the 'Net must have politicos (and therefore lobbyists) wetting themselves and this issue could easily be their first payday. It's also a mainstream issue, which means that even if it were something we finally got organized to deal with, online porn is basically an irrelevance.

The best we can hope for is that when NN is dead (and if not this time, it will be within 10 years tops), 1st tiering is not too expensive and we will be allowed access to it.

[HizAzPhun]

Ok, I have a question that I'm sure a lot of webmasters also have, from the governments' point of view, what incentive is there to pass this anti-net-neutrality bill?

Obviously I can see why it would be profitable to the carriers, but why would is the government even considering it? Also, how can telcos "sell" consumers on an idea that will make a lot of the Internet slower for them? Consumers will hate this shit just as much as us webmasters will.

Please enlighten me, and here's another bummmppp...

[Doctor Dre]

I just don't see how this will go true. Somebody please watch the aviator... bills written by big compagnes have a hard time going into effect.

[$5 submissions]

bills written by big compagnes have a hard time going into effect.

The DMCA had AOL and major ISPs' fingerprints all over it

[HizAzPhun]

Boogely BOO!

[pocketkangaroo]

Ok, I have a question that I'm sure a lot of webmasters also have, from the governments' point of view, what incentive is there to pass this anti-net-neutrality bill?

Obviously I can see why it would be profitable to the carriers, but why would is the government even considering it? Also, how can telcos "sell" consumers on an idea that will make a lot of the Internet slower for them? Consumers will hate this shit just as much as us webmasters will.

Please enlighten me, and here's another bummmppp...

Well the government considers it because the carriers throw a lot of money their way. They have a very strong lobbying group and have increased political donations and lobbying funds ten fold. It's the same reason why oil companies get tax breaks, they buy congressmen.

There is little incentive to pass it besides making the carriers a ton of money. Their argument is that they have to pay for the infrastructure and expanding the net. The problem is that the government already gives them hundreds of millions in tax breaks and grants that usually just get pocketed.

Here is a little more information on our great Telcos and what they do with money:

http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

The politicians are shaking down the large companies, but that doesn't mean the large companies won't win. There is very little cable competition in this country, largely because the big companies paid off the local governments to give them sweetheart deals, that were virtual monopolies.

Once they had secured their territories, the big cable companies kept coming up with excuse after to excuse to raise fees and keep out competition. You would think Republicans would be opposed to such practices, but instead in recent years they have consistently supported such anti-competitive measures.

The legislation that the big cable companies have lobbied for seems stalled for now, but in order to ensure that the net is accessible fairly to all, much more education needs to occur. For the most part, the media has done a terrible job of breaking down this issue for the public. They should start by ditching the term "Net Neutrality", and call it what it really is, a naked power grab by the giants of the cable industry.

ADG Webmaster

[tony286]

it sucks and a big problem is politians dont know shit about the net just what they are told be lobbying group talking points. It gives very few control over alot.

[HizAzPhun]

Well the government considers it because the carriers throw a lot of money their way. They have a very strong lobbying group and have increased political donations and lobbying funds ten fold. It's the same reason why oil companies get tax breaks, they buy congressmen.

There is little incentive to pass it besides making the carriers a ton of money. Their argument is that they have to pay for the infrastructure and expanding the net. The problem is that the government already gives them hundreds of millions in tax breaks and grants that usually just get pocketed.

Here is a little more information on our great Telcos and what they do with money:

http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

Thanks for the info and the link.

[Webby]

Net neutrality is another US "issue". Bottom line - make as many laws and regulations as can be churned out, but it's a totally different scenario when dealing with the rest of the world.

I smell yet another WTO ruling coming up

[HizAzPhun]

Net neutrality is another US "issue". Bottom line - make as many laws and regulations as can be churned out, but it's a totally different scenario when dealing with the rest of the world.

I smell yet another WTO ruling coming up

Good point, would be interesting to see how other countries reacted to such an inane policy with such broad-reaching effects.

[Rochard]

Net Neutrality is something that will never happend. It would do nothing but make addiational profit for a handful of companies, while doing serious damage to all of the other companies. If this was to happen, the public would be outraged. This is like telling GM that only Ford can make SUVs.

Also, the US needs to understand it's a single country - and US laws don't apply to other countries.

[pocketkangaroo]

Net neutrality is another US "issue". Bottom line - make as many laws and regulations as can be churned out, but it's a totally different scenario when dealing with the rest of the world.

I smell yet another WTO ruling coming up

Yes, but most people on this board are targeting and making a living off of US webmasters. It might not effect anyone in other countries, but if you are targeting US surfers, you'll have to play by their ISPs rules.

[pocketkangaroo]

Net Neutrality is something that will never happend. It would do nothing but make addiational profit for a handful of companies, while doing serious damage to all of the other companies. If this was to happen, the public would be outraged. This is like telling GM that only Ford can make SUVs.

Also, the US needs to understand it's a single country - and US laws don't apply to other countries.

You mean anti-net neutrality. Net neutrality is what we want.

[testpie]

Also, the US needs to understand it's a single country - and US laws don't apply to other countries.

Thank you - i was just going to say that. Strangely enough, there are actually adult webmasters who operate outside of the USA to so called "foreign markets"...


Dun, dun, DUUUUUN!