Save The Internet

[Rainsford]

As for making sure this DOESN'T become a problem, here is the proper sequence of things we, as consumers, can do.

1. Talk to your elected representatives. "Free market" types aside, the internet isn't exactly owned by Comcast and SBC, it's as much a national resource as anything else the government regulates.

2. Vote with your dollars. While the cable companies can screw you like a virgin on prom night, the good news is that competition is on the increase. In many large areas, you can get DSL with any number of ISPs, at least a few of which are the "enthusiast" types that won't go for this kind of crap. Beyond that, many areas are starting to get built up with fiber owned by companies other than the cable companies, allowing for more internet options. When your only choice is Comcast, they might be able to get away with it, but if there is competition, it's harder to be the first company to take such an anti-consumer step.

3. "Fix" the system. The internet isn't exactly brimming over with security, and this won't be any different. The kind of systems that would be necessary to implement something like this are going to have holes big enough to drive an oil tanker through, and the beauty of this being a "big guy" thing is that class breaks will mean one guy can break the entire system for an entire ISP, and possibly even more than that. I'm not suggesting hacking the boxes that do this "prioritizing", but tricking them probably won't be too hard. If Chinese citizens can get around the blocks their government puts on their internet access, I would imagine we can do the same. Think of all the brainpower out there that has defeated EVERY anti-consumer technology out there, from Sony's rootkit to Apple's iTunes music protection, and imagine it being applied to this problem. Only instead of doing something that allows them to get painted as criminals trying to "steal" music and movies, they'll be doing it for a reason a lot of people will sympathize with. And the fact that their efforts will lend themselves to comparisons with Chinese citizens trying to get past the censorship the Chinese government puts in place will make the telco companies look VERY bad by comparison.

 

[dchakrab]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
What part of "This bill has already been shot down yesterday" dont you guys understand? It's not an issue...

Incorrect. You've posted this here and in the other thread.

Actually, the amendment was shot down. The amendment seeking to insert net neutrality clauses to prevent exactly this kind of tiered internet structure. It was expected that this amendment would be shot down, but it's heartening that the margin was actually rather close, and this indicates that if there is actually some public outcry over this, more and more legislators will shift their position back into sanity.

Oh, and this isn't a free market situation, for those of you who think competition is great. There isn't any competition, is the problem. In most areas, one or at most two telcos have monopolistic or near-monopolistic market strangleholds. Clear precedent (and common sense) dictates that these companies are not going to do a great job of looking out for the public interest. When the monkey lives on the banana plantation, there is some sense in making sure there are people keeping a close watch on the bananas.

Want proof? Read the book "Teletruths" ...can't remember the author. It describes in detail how the telcos have taken millions of dollars from every single state in the US in contracts to roll out super high speed fiber networks, including rural broadband...and instead, they've delivered nothing, effectively breaking their contracts in every state in the country without penalty. Japan has 40Mb/s up and down for $40 a month. What do we have? Right. We even have a crappier definition of "broadband" than the rest of the world, just to try and inflate those numbers a little more. There's a reason we've lost our competitive edge in this field, and in many others.

D.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: dchakrab

Originally posted by: blackangst1
What part of "This bill has already been shot down yesterday" dont you guys understand? It's not an issue...

Incorrect. You've posted this here and in the other thread.

Actually, the amendment was shot down. The amendment seeking to insert net neutrality clauses to prevent exactly this kind of tiered internet structure. It was expected that this amendment would be shot down, but it's heartening that the margin was actually rather close, and this indicates that if there is actually some public outcry over this, more and more legislators will shift their position back into sanity.

Oh, and this isn't a free market situation, for those of you who think competition is great. There isn't any competition, is the problem. In most areas, one or at most two telcos have monopolistic or near-monopolistic market strangleholds. Clear precedent (and common sense) dictates that these companies are not going to do a great job of looking out for the public interest. When the monkey lives on the banana plantation, there is some sense in making sure there are people keeping a close watch on the bananas.

Want proof? Read the book "Teletruths" ...can't remember the author. It describes in detail how the telcos have taken millions of dollars from every single state in the US in contracts to roll out super high speed fiber networks, including rural broadband...and instead, they've delivered nothing, effectively breaking their contracts in every state in the country without penalty. Japan has 40Mb/s up and down for $40 a month. What do we have? Right. We even have a crappier definition of "broadband" than the rest of the world, just to try and inflate those numbers a little more. There's a reason we've lost our competitive edge in this field, and in many others.

D.

So what are YOU going to do about it??

 

[piasabird]

I think what advertisers pay for is large hit-counts as far as free sites are concerned. It is the advertising dollars that pay the bills.

The Internet is not just a government run network inside the Internet are huge private networks called backbones owned by different entities like MCI, etc.

What happens if they word a law to give preferential treatment to paid traffic is they might be able to block or limit traffic from Telcos like Vonage or people using software to communicate over IP Networking. It is hard to determine what is paid traffic. I pay a fee to access the internet to my ISP. This is all a little ambiguous.

 

[dchakrab]

What am I, personally, going to do about it? I've already called my elected representatives and made it clear where I stand on this. I've also emailed them. I'm trying to make as many people aware of this issue as possible. I am also contacting the offices of the governor and other leading legislators to encourage them to support House Bill 3650 here in IL (which was just signed) and to ask them to fund it at $8 million this year, allowing the funding of a statewide community technology coalition at ~$100k (the bill funds community technology centers and programs through a grant administered by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity).

And I'm trying to figure out other ways we can work to protect the internet as we know it. One idea I have is to get community technology centers to organize a letter writing campaign as part of a civic engagement initiative, to collectively organize constituents to voice their thoughts on this and make legislators know that they are being watched, and watched closely.

And I'm doing all of this as an unpaid Americorps VISTA volunteer, incidentally...I live off a housing stipend and food stamps. This is something I'm really, really commited to worked towards.

So...what are you guys planning to do about this? This isn't something that's going to happen if just a few people discuss it and make the right gestures. Everyone who's commented on this thread should take the five minutes to look up your senators / representatives, figure out where they stand (savetheinternet.com has a list) and give them a call to tell them where you stand. They're your representatives, and they're speaking in your name. If you think this sucks, tell them it sucks. If you don't tell them it sucks ...well, I can't even imagine why you wouldn't. Bobby Rush is ready to sell the internet down the river because some of his constituents complain about high cable bills...and no one else is screaming about anything else, so that's the only voice he's heard so far.

The squeeky wheel gets the grease. Squeek, wheels, squeek. If we don't, then what's the point complaining about the corporations taking over America? Our legislators aren't tuned in to this thread.

Dave.