Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Corporations are pressuring congress to give them absolute power over the internet thus turning it into a multi tiered system where only those who pay above and beyond what they already pay for net access will be able to access the high broadband levels. This in effect will kill highspeed access for anyone who can't or won't cough up what the corporations want. This bill has already passed the House and if it passes the Senate it's a sure bet that the Corporate lapdog, Shrub, will sign it into law.

.....Boohoo?

Originally posted by ILoveMyDaniel
.....Boohoo?

Exactly.

Boy, you guys are something else. Next they'll start charging for air, and you won't care.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Boy, you guys are something else. Next they'll start charging for air, and you won't care.
It's just money, dude. Chances are they won't even pass this crap anyway.

But they don't OWN the air.

Let's make the assumption that this is a bad thing for customers. But seriously, can you give any good economic reason why the people who lay down all the wire and cable that we make free use of with the Internet should NOT be allowed to come up with a pricing structure that decides its use? All those wires are their property, after all.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But they don't OWN the air.

Let's make the assumption that this is a bad thing for customers. But seriously, can you give any good economic reason why the people who lay down all the wire and cable that we make free use of with the Internet should NOT be allowed to come up with a pricing structure that decides its use? All those wires are their property, after all.

Yer. Verizon owns my wires.

I pay Verizon.

AINT THAT ENOUGH?

Buncha bull, that's what this is.

Heh. Shrub. I like that.

There goes the neighborhood................

You are paying for an Internet service- that is the servers and the support for them.

But the service uses the existing wired infrastructure, which the people that own it do have the right to decide how that service is priced to customers!

The market will take care of this. At first there will be a lot of complaining, but then those people need the Internet will set the price. After all, a provider can only charge what a customer is willing to pay.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But they don't OWN the air.

Let's make the assumption that this is a bad thing for customers. But seriously, can you give any good economic reason why the people who lay down all the wire and cable that we make free use of with the Internet should NOT be allowed to come up with a pricing structure that decides its use? All those wires are their property, after all.


The internet is a communications medium. They are already charging for it, they are already maing money. By keeping the internet neutral they can't tell you which sites you can and can't visit, which they will if they get this on. It's also about free speech and access to any website one wishes. Everything isn't about profit and the CEO's bonus. But like all good sheep you people don't seem to grasp what this will mean.

But it is THEIRS, is the point. You may think that is a more moral way to do it- which is highly debatable. But what right do you have to demand the way a company prices its services? You didn't install the damn wires.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The market will take care of this. At first there will be a lot of complaining, but then those people need the Internet will set the price. After all, a provider can only charge what a customer is willing to pay.

Yup, see, THAT is the way it should be. Customer power will beat attempts to legislate this issue every time.

There is no need to worry, because prices will still have to be competitive, else someone else will undercut.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But they don't OWN the air.



If some people had their way they would. Capitalism is a good thing when limits are put on it. The internet is one such place where those limits should be applied.

Speculate about that all you like. Fact is, they don't own the air, nor did they put it there, but they do and did with the wires.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yup, see, THAT is the way it should be. Customer power will beat attempts to legislate this issue every time.

There is no need to worry, because prices will still have to be competitive, else someone else will undercut.

Oh but you're wrong. This is about creating monoplies. People will pay for it often when there is no alternative. There should be an alternative. The more choices the better.....for the consumer that is.

You're basically paying for a service...just like when you pay for the cable tv or the dish tv...if you don't like it...you can always cancel it. The internet is not a necesity...is just a luxuary...besides...not everyone has internet in their homes....even in this day and age.

I love the Internet.............to my own demise..........

I am not aware that there is anything approaching a communications monopoly in the States.

Choice will be plentiful. New companies only have to install new wires and then they can set their own terms. If they wishedd, companies could build an infrastrucure and specifically market on being neutral.

Bottom line- I don;t think we have the right to have laws that prevent the free flow of the free market in this instance.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The market will take care of this. At first there will be a lot of complaining, but then those people need the Internet will set the price. After all, a provider can only charge what a customer is willing to pay.

It MIGHT work if there is plenty of competition. Problem is the trend in the corporate world now is merge, merge, merge. If you end up with 2 or 3 giant corporations then they can dictate the market and consumers are left with no options. Anti trustlaws basically count for nothing anymore.

There will be competition.

There is no reason for the Internet to be an exception to normal market practice.

What this is all about is that, right now, companies cannot make deals that allow internet traffic to work faster with some sites than others, the idea being that those who pay more would get faster service to certain areas. More likely the situation is that sites with heavy traffic- those dispensing music or films- would have to pay more for the use of the wired infrastructure. The fear is that such costs will get pased down to customers, one example fear being an increase in the expense of itunes, as Apple have to pay more to ensure their service is using the high-speed connection.

As this data does indeed pass through the wires that BELONG to the companies in questions, I really do not see any logic that says they should be legally prevented from doing this.

The Internet is not a charity. It is an incredibly expensive and expansive infrasturcutre that is absolutely a luxury good. Telephones and television are run along corporate lines. Corporations provide the Internet for you. I am afraid you will just have to accept that the Internet is a Corporate owned product and that they have the right to market it as they wish!

Something else you should realise is that the net is global. Market forces are going to dominate in the world. The US cannot legislate that out of existence.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are paying for an Internet service- that is the servers and the support for them.

But the service uses the existing wired infrastructure, which the people that own it do have the right to decide how that service is priced to customers!

Let the coorperations pay the greedy bastards then, not the consumer.

EDIT: Wait, that'll filter down, won't it?

I withdraw my point. <_<

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I am not aware that there is anything approaching a communications monopoly in the States.


You haven't been paying much attention lately then have you? AT&T's illegal (anti trust laws) recent aquisition of Bell South almost make it the monoply it was before it was broken up in 1984 because it was a monoply


Choice will be plentiful.

That's debatable

New companies only have to install new wires and then they can set their own terms. If they wishedd, companies could build an infrastrucure and specifically market on being neutral.

Until they're bought out by larger anti neutral companies




Bottom line- I don;t think we have the right to have laws that prevent the free flow of the free market in this instance.

But this isn't about a free market, it's about creating monoplies. Whenever corporations lobby for something it isn't to protect the consumer.

Can you possibly explain the logic that says that., by charging different rates for different speeds, this in any way changes the nature of the communications market to create any monopolies?

The reason they are lobbying is because it is simply damn silly right now that they cannot charge the way they want.

Ush the only wires that communications companies own are the ones being layed over the sea to reach europe or asia... unless you know which wires they own because as far as I know they can only control where to place a repeater or base to expand the signal strength. Also this bill would only control which ports remain open and which websites you can and cant view such as porn if they wanted to.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Can you possibly explain the logic that says that., by charging different rates for different speeds, this in any way changes the nature of the communications market to create any monopolies?

The reason they are lobbying is because it is simply damn silly right now that they cannot charge the way they want.


Just because you own something doesn't mean you should be able to do anything you want with it.

For example, I own a house. But it's also part of a homeowners association. I cannot make changes to the property without the associations permission. I cannot use the house for an external business such as a garage mechanic's business because that is against the associations by laws. While these rules to put restricitions on my freedoms, they also protect my neighbors, in otherwords, these rules are for the common good.

With the net being as it is, it allows the maximum number of people maximum access to most of the net. While this might hurt a companies bottom line and it's CEO's bonus, it's for the common good, which should supersede everything else.

It's like these disasterous free trade policies which are helping the global elite but are killing the middle class in the US. "It's a global economy" scream it's advocates but such people have more of an alligance to their own personal bank account than to their nationsl long term best interests. But that's really an argument for another time.

The same applies to the internet.

Originally posted by El_NINO
Ush the only wires that communications companies own are the ones being layed over the sea to reach europe or asia... unless you know which wires they own because as far as I know they can only control where to place a repeater or base to expand the signal strength. Also this bill would only control which ports remain open and which websites you can and cant view such as porn if they wanted to.

What, so you think that all those cables aren't owned by any companies? Nice one.

-

And Erebus, I already told you, it is not a charity. It's not like water companies who are providing an essential need and so have legal requirements outside of commerce. Nor is it like a house deal where you sign a contract outlining your rights as an owner.

Those networks were laid in place for one reason- by companies wanting to make money for their use. And there is nothing wrong with that. There is certainly something wrong with FORCING those wires to be used for a purpose without letting those who installed them have any say in the way that use is priced.

It's simple selfishness to expect them to be ok with that.

Don't agree. Electricity wasn't always considered a necessity either, but try that argument now (in first world countries). The net isn't a luxury for many anymore, it's a necessity. I have nothing against companies charging and making money, but it should be regulated and controlled, so the maximum number of consumers benifit the most.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Don't agree. Electricity wasn't always considered a necessity either, but try that argument now (in first world countries). The net isn't a luxury for many anymore, it's a necessity. I have nothing against companies charging and making money, but it should be regulated and controlled, so the maximum number of consumers benifit the most.

The Internet is not a necessity, and High Speed internet most certainly not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The Internet is not a necessity, and High Speed internet most certainly not.

Now that just depends on who you are. I would say that for people who work at Amazon, Yahoo, Google, Ebay, etc, etc, etc the net is a ABSOLUTE necessity, and high speed internet sure doesn't hurt.

But don't fret, the Corporations are sure to get their way here, they always do, and it's us, the consumers, who will lose.

**** corporations, i say install wireless receptors on every telephone pole and raise taxes by 1%.

Funny you mention Google, they've actually been spotted buying enormus amounts of cables and are rumored to be starting their own internet.

Hey, why don't we privatize water like they did in venezuala before the 98 riots so every company has to build their own competing sewer system? that would be totally awesome.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Now that just depends on who you are. I would say that for people who work at Amazon, Yahoo, Google, Ebay, etc, etc, etc the net is a ABSOLUTE necessity, and high speed internet sure doesn't hurt.

But don't fret, the Corporations are sure to get their way here, they always do, and it's us, the consumers, who will lose.

Yeah, because the average person works for an online company.

And this is pretty old news...I heard about it about 2-3 months ago.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Funny you mention Google, they've actually been spotted buying enormus amounts of cables and are rumored to be starting their own internet.
Your signature is hot. Sorry, I had to point that out.

You pay for the connection to the internet, they do not own the internet itself.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What, so you think that all those cables aren't owned by any companies? Nice one.

-

And Erebus, I already told you, it is not a charity. It's not like water companies who are providing an essential need and so have legal requirements outside of commerce. Nor is it like a house deal where you sign a contract outlining your rights as an owner.

Those networks were laid in place for one reason- by companies wanting to make money for their use. And there is nothing wrong with that. There is certainly something wrong with FORCING those wires to be used for a purpose without letting those who installed them have any say in the way that use is priced.

It's simple selfishness to expect them to be ok with that.

So who owns them then? What about when you decide to switch phone companies, all of a sudden the new phone company owns the wires now?

I'm sure everyone knows the internet wasn't actually started by any single company right? The internet started as a national defense system in the United States...the fiber optic cables themselves most likely still belong to the government/military. Most likely. Because it only makes sense. Don't quote me on that.

Originally posted by ILoveMyDaniel
Your signature is hot. Sorry, I had to point that out.

I know, it's ok.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Boy, you guys are something else. Next they'll start charging for air, and you won't care.




Dude, How the hell are you going to pay for air?

each breath of air = 25 cents

in a life time... o boy ... dont wanna think about it

Air is alredy being chaarged for. Air in a can is like $10 a can. You have to pay for oxygen tanks as well.

i'd rather pay for an oxygen tank then die of nitrogen narcosis

Originally posted by Lana
Yeah, because the average person works for an online company.

And this is pretty old news...I heard about it about 2-3 months ago.


Two-three months ago it was only a bill under discussion. This passed the US House June 9, which is a huge difference.

I'm sorry, classing the Internet as a necessity is contempible. Television radios, even PHONES... none of these are necessities. Very handy as they are, they are still luxury goods, and we have always paid commerce rate for them.

So it is with the Internet.

And... I am not sure what this confusion about the wired infrastructure is. This stuff gets laid by companies. The US Government, like all other ISPs, used the existing strucutre when they created their network which later became one of the founding parts of the Internet.

I'm sorry, but there is simply no real right to stop companies charging on Free Market grounds. Nor is it really a bad thing.

The only way in which this can be seen as bad is in that it creates a system in which those with more money can benefit more than those with less.

But I don't get why such a fuss is made about that. Because, like, that is how money works!. The entire point of money is that those with more get more. Now, if you want to totally change the nature of the world so that this is not so... err, good luck to you. But the fact that money = stuff is hardly the fault of the comms companies.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The Internet is not a necessity, and High Speed internet most certainly not. I love things that go fast.............I have high speed.........

Originally posted by debbiejo
I love things that go fast.............I have high speed.........

And soon you will have to pay even more for it

But male prostitutes are wayyyyyyy cheaper......


oh, we're talking about internet.............

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm sorry, classing the Internet as a necessity is contempible. Television radios, even PHONES... none of these are necessities. Very handy as they are, they are still luxury goods, and we have always paid commerce rate for them.

So it is with the Internet.

And... I am not sure what this confusion about the wired infrastructure is. This stuff gets laid by companies. The US Government, like all other ISPs, used the existing strucutre when they created their network which later became one of the founding parts of the Internet.

I'm sorry, but there is simply no real right to stop companies charging on Free Market grounds. Nor is it really a bad thing.

The only way in which this can be seen as bad is in that it creates a system in which those with more money can benefit more than those with less.

But I don't get why such a fuss is made about that. Because, like, that is how money works!. The entire point of money is that those with more get more. Now, if you want to totally change the nature of the world so that this is not so... err, good luck to you. But the fact that money = stuff is hardly the fault of the comms companies.

Well, we can certainly agree to disagree. I see this as a bad thing, and your greed is good mentality belongs in the 19th century.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm sorry, classing the Internet as a necessity is contempible. Television radios, even PHONES... none of these are necessities. Very handy as they are, they are still luxury goods, and we have always paid commerce rate for them.

So it is with the Internet.

And... I am not sure what this confusion about the wired infrastructure is. This stuff gets laid by companies. The US Government, like all other ISPs, used the existing strucutre when they created their network which later became one of the founding parts of the Internet.

I'm sorry, but there is simply no real right to stop companies charging on Free Market grounds. Nor is it really a bad thing.

The only way in which this can be seen as bad is in that it creates a system in which those with more money can benefit more than those with less.

But I don't get why such a fuss is made about that. Because, like, that is how money works!. The entire point of money is that those with more get more. Now, if you want to totally change the nature of the world so that this is not so... err, good luck to you. But the fact that money = stuff is hardly the fault of the comms companies.

The Department of Defense started ARPANET (which led to the internet) and to do so they had to sponsor the creation of the actual network connections. A company may have laid it down, but the government paid for it to be done. For a company to start charging AGAIN for lines that were already paid for to be created is just greed.

Seriously, you think companies laid down those lines for free in the first place? That's not how capitalism works, and you know that. Someone (the government) needed those lines to be there(to make the internet), so they had to pay for it to be done. Some company wasn't going to lay down lines and just hope for the invention of the internet.

Also, that is the nature of the world, those with more money, get more stuff. That's right. But when a person is paying X amount of money for something already, and they jack it up to 3X out of greed, that puts a whole lot of people who were able to afford that something, into a lower group. Do this with a few more things and suddenly middle class isn't middle class anymore, they can't afford to be and you make a much larger poor class.

But whatever, **** the little guy, middle and poor class only makes up 97% of the nation.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Boy, you guys are something else. Next they'll start charging for air, and you won't care.

you can say that again.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
The Department of Defense started ARPANET (which led to the internet) and to do so they had to sponsor the creation of the actual network connections. A company may have laid it down, but the government paid for it to be done. For a company to start charging AGAIN for lines that were already paid for to be created is just greed.

Seriously, you think companies laid down those lines for free in the first place? That's not how capitalism works, and you know that. Someone (the government) needed those lines to be there(to make the internet), so they had to pay for it to be done. Some company wasn't going to lay down lines and just hope for the invention of the internet.

Also, that is the nature of the world, those with more money, get more stuff. That's right. But when a person is paying X amount of money for something already, and they jack it up to 3X out of greed, that puts a whole lot of people who were able to afford that something, into a lower group. Do this with a few more things and suddenly middle class isn't middle class anymore, they can't afford to be and you make a much larger poor class.

But whatever, **** the little guy, middle and poor class only makes up 97% of the nation.

Holy heck, read what I say properly, will you? I didn't say they did it for free, I said they did it to make money. And you seem to have this weird idea that the internet works on some magical network the Government installed. Err, what now? The internet works on the cable and telephone network, which is entirely commercial! The infrastructure was never, EVER a Government owned product. I don't know why you are having difficulty with this. How could you possibly have thought that all the phone cabling in your country was Government owned and installled? And furthermore, why do you have this strange idea that once the cables are laid down, it is immoral to charge more for their use? Made a phone call lately?

And now we see what this is. Simple consumer greed- you resent companies having the freedom to price.

Tough. Let them price as they will, and competition will do the rest. Like I say, it gets done for tv and phones. There is not the slightest ethical reason for it to be not the same with the net.

This isn't going to be a matter of trying to fleece customers. It is a matter that companies have a right to charge for people using their commercial property! What right do you invoke for getting that for free? The greed is yours, not theirs.

Capitalism is as relevant today as it ever has been; the view that belongs in the past is this muddle-headed, illogical and, in the final analysis, selfsih one that says that companies owe you all favours and free stuff.

Yea I have made a phone call lately, which is charged for. And guess what, the internet is already charged for too! Charging once for the lines being used is not greed, charging the same consumer TWICE is greed. People already have to pay to be connected to the internet, using the cables and telephone lines you mentioned. It's not really that hard to figure out.

with a microphone you can talk for free over the net from anywhere in the world......

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Yea I have made a phone call lately, which is charged for. And guess what, the internet is already charged for too! Charging once for the lines being used is not greed, charging the same consumer TWICE is greed. People already have to pay to be connected to the internet, using the cables and telephone lines you mentioned. It's not really that hard to figure out.

It really wouldnt matter if the companies jacked up the price because 1) competion will lower the price 2) only those who can afford it will pay therfore customer base will dwindle

The real probelm about the Net Neutrility Bill is that they would be able to control what you can and cant view which is considered like taking away your freedom of speech. You may not even be able to come to KMC anymore to discuss topics such as this.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Holy heck, read what I say properly, will you? I didn't say they did it for free, I said they did it to make money. And you seem to have this weird idea that the internet works on some magical network the Government installed. Err, what now? The internet works on the cable and telephone network, which is entirely commercial! The infrastructure was never, EVER a Government owned product. I don't know why you are having difficulty with this. How could you possibly have thought that all the phone cabling in your country was Government owned and installled? And furthermore, why do you have this strange idea that once the cables are laid down, it is immoral to charge more for their use? Made a phone call lately?

And now we see what this is. Simple consumer greed- you resent companies having the freedom to price.

Tough. Let them price as they will, and competition will do the rest. Like I say, it gets done for tv and phones. There is not the slightest ethical reason for it to be not the same with the net.

This isn't going to be a matter of trying to fleece customers. It is a matter that companies have a right to charge for people using their commercial property! What right do you invoke for getting that for free? The greed is yours, not theirs.

Capitalism is as relevant today as it ever has been; the view that belongs in the past is this muddle-headed, illogical and, in the final analysis, selfsih one that says that companies owe you all favours and free stuff.



This is about the internet being neutral, not free, quit twisting things around. Last time I checked my internet connection wasn't free.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Holy heck, read what I say properly, will you? I didn't say they did it for free, I said they did it to make money. And you seem to have this weird idea that the internet works on some magical network the Government installed. Err, what now? The internet works on the cable and telephone network, which is entirely commercial! The infrastructure was never, EVER a Government owned product. I don't know why you are having difficulty with this. How could you possibly have thought that all the phone cabling in your country was Government owned and installled? And furthermore, why do you have this strange idea that once the cables are laid down, it is immoral to charge more for their use? Made a phone call lately?

And now we see what this is. Simple consumer greed- you resent companies having the freedom to price.

Tough. Let them price as they will, and competition will do the rest. Like I say, it gets done for tv and phones. There is not the slightest ethical reason for it to be not the same with the net.

This isn't going to be a matter of trying to fleece customers. It is a matter that companies have a right to charge for people using their commercial property! What right do you invoke for getting that for free? The greed is yours, not theirs.

Capitalism is as relevant today as it ever has been; the view that belongs in the past is this muddle-headed, illogical and, in the final analysis, selfsih one that says that companies owe you all favours and free stuff. We pay quite a bit for our internet connection - we paid for our cables to be laid down into our home, we paid for the modem, and we pay for our bandwith - I really don't want to see the price go up out of greed which it is, as what other reason would they have to raise it other than for mo' moneh.

The hell - this thread was started with the discussion about Network Neutrality and was derailed after three posts. It's not about it being free or greed, it's about corporations that own the wires deciding which websites will work best for you based on what site pays them more.

Network Neutrality

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm sorry, classing the Internet as a necessity is contempible. Television radios, even PHONES... none of these are necessities. Very handy as they are, they are still luxury goods, and we have always paid commerce rate for them.

So it is with the Internet.

And... I am not sure what this confusion about the wired infrastructure is. This stuff gets laid by companies. The US Government, like all other ISPs, used the existing strucutre when they created their network which later became one of the founding parts of the Internet.

I'm sorry, but there is simply no real right to stop companies charging on Free Market grounds. Nor is it really a bad thing.

The only way in which this can be seen as bad is in that it creates a system in which those with more money can benefit more than those with less.

But I don't get why such a fuss is made about that. Because, like, that is how money works!. The entire point of money is that those with more get more. Now, if you want to totally change the nature of the world so that this is not so... err, good luck to you. But the fact that money = stuff is hardly the fault of the comms companies.

Phones are hardly luxuries. The only people who don't use radios or televisions or phones are amish communities and the like. They are ok because of their community. However, if you want to succeed in the fast paced world of consumerism, then these most basic of technologies, I think, are absolutely essential. Try getting a job (or a date), among other things, without a phone or an e-mail. Sure it can be done, but it's definitely going to be more difficult than if that person had one or the other. Maybe they could just go knock on the door of that company 20 miles away from their home. Are cars luxuries too?

The same goes for radios and other affordable means of information. You call access to information a luxury, I call it a right.

Oh and I'm not saying providers don't have the right to charge what they want for their service. They certainly do. I'm just pointing out that some technological "luxuries" are hardly that in our developing world. They are becoming necessities.

I'm not sure how many of you have heard of this, or if this topic has been posted before ( I couldn't find it)

Save the Internet

Or for those of you who want the ultra-sumerised version check

Here


This is grave stuff, and the internet is in serious risk right now.

Originally posted by Robo-Chocobo
I'm not sure how many of you have heard of this, or if this topic has been posted before ( I couldn't find it)

Save the Internet

Or for those of you who want the ultra-sumerised version check

Here


This is grave stuff, and the internet is in serious risk right now.

The bill didn't make it past the Senate.

umm No offence but there is no chance in hell thats going to happen. THE INTERNET WAS CREATED BY THE ****ING FEDS. so you know what they damn well should have power over it...You know what would happen if they didnt..**** everyone would be killed There would be so much Hate-crimes, child poronography the music film arts and other business would no longer exist. you want net neturality heres and idea..Give every person on this planet a nuke..It would be faster.

bless your heart