The end of the internet as we know it

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.

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