Who do you think should have control over Internet content?
by Marc Bennett - 7/18/06 12:16 PM
Who do you think should have control over Internet content and why?
I don't care
ATTENTION: Forums will be in Read Mode only starting today (3/06/2014.) This outage will start at 6 PM Pacific Time and last throughout the weekend for us to perform a major update to our site. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here for details.
by: Marc Bennett July 18, 2006 12:16 PM PDT
0 people like this thread
It's a shame some abuse our freedom...
While I'm very thankful for the freedom the net offers,I know what you mean about the filth popping up unwanted online.
At the same time, if the net is regulated, some psycho in control could block wanted stuff.
While I'd fight for it,I'd hate to have to fight for net freedom. We gotta be careful about asking for regulation, some high ups will abuse it.
by bergmark - 7/19/06 8:20 AM
(NT) Internet content control
by earroyo309 - 7/19/06 8:40 AM
For puropses of world peace, there should not be any control of internet content. If this should happen, many disadvantaged peoples will not be free to say what they want. We do not need Big Brother to control any part of our lives, expecially in a society that believes in the Freedom of Speach.
If we lose net neutrality, censorship is the next stop
by ralfha - 7/19/06 10:57 AM
Neutrality has been a key tenet of the Internet so far, and it is essential to keep the freedom of speech that the net enjoys. Today all packets are created equal, no matter which web site they came from. If we let ISP's/telco's slow down (or "not speed up") the packets of some sites arbitrarily because they didn't pay some toll fee for VIP (very important packet) treatment we are effectively letting telcos censor where we surf. At times when pipes get clogged, the packets of non-VIP sites could get so painfully bogged down that consumers lose all incentive to visit those sites. That is a subtle form of censorship, and it's contrary to everything the net stands for.
Guaranteeing such a basic net right should not be left to chance. It should be done via legislation, especially when there are huge profit incentives for telcos to negotiate away this right from their customers in the future.
EXACTLY!!! If it ain't broke don't fix it!!!
by Bbbjck - 7/19/06 1:36 PM
In Reply to: If we lose net neutrality, censorship is the next stop by ralfha
The 'gov' only wants to be able to spy, censor and whatever else is in their "agenda" .
i feel violated
the concept behind charging more for more bandwith is SOMEWHAT reasonable. if ur site is sucking tons of juice, i understnad there should be a difference in price (i UNDERSTAND IT, not believe it)
the only problem is that right now (i believe) that it is impossible for the gov to stop me from viewing adfaflkd site. mab if it's in the us they can shut down the company and then site
but if its from anywhere then they cant do anything about it.
this will end up being 1 step towards china.
i can already see the future.
we will be living off technology that is controlled by the gov and big buisness. thats the beauty of wut r internet is now....its really FREE (i post it you cant stop me etc.)
its funny im always tetering on becoming a conspiritorist (sp?) because everything the gov does supposedly has a kind face to it but then again wutever is being done can be used against us.
all i know is that this somehow seems like an echo of the patriot act. (dont know if this has been mentioned)
im sorry if i really offend anyone with this BUT id rather have "terrorist attackS" (there has only been one that origonated outside US soil from wut ive known) because the gov couldnt search through everything and censor us. than us be "safe" (impossible) because they could read my emails, instant messages, google searches, and everyhing else i type into this damn keyboard.
i see the purpose behind paying for more bandwith (i belive thats wut it is) but i see where this might go AND I DONT LIKE IT
You made excellent points.
I fear AND dread censorship of the Net, especially government censorship.
The Net/WWW MUST stay FREE!! The purpose of the Net is FREEDOM of information and they want to ruin this precious human right!
You are confusing issues
by andysacks - 7/19/06 2:47 PM
In Reply to: If we lose net neutrality, censorship is the next stop by ralfha
You say that not having net neutrality laws will affect content availability. I disagree completely. A properly built network will make delivery on your online purchase order wait maybe 30 milli seconds more so streaming video can be delivered uninterupted. Wow. In your version of the internet you must think Telco's have an obligation to run a free internet, you are completely wrong. They own the pipes therefore they should be able to decide how the pipes are used. You also say what they should be forced to do, but you don't say how to pay for it. If you don't like the business decisions, and it is a buisness, of the Internet Backbone operators your free to disconnect your service and build your own network.
You also overlook the obvious, market costs will determine what a "content" provider pays the Backbone operators. Someone will always offer a better price.
Also why are you singling out the Telco's? You believe Cable and Sat service providers won't link speed and cost? Good one.
>...that not having net neutrality laws will affect content availability. I disagree completely.<
FACT: There is NOTHING wrong with the net right NOW!!! What laws are there governing it at present? What we have right NOW is working just fine!!!
The only reasons for these 'new' "net neutrality laws" is GREED and 'gov'!!! GREED on the part of ISPs of all sorts. And these new laws will only DIVIDE the net into smaller more easily CONTROLLED portions for the 'gov' to dip into... Can YOU say NSA wiretapping???
Sorry, you are incorrect...
You can read my post above. However, not having network neutrality allows large corporations the ability to decide what web sites can be viewed and at what speed. This will be based on which web sites can pay the highest dollars for quick access. That is wrong. It leaves the smaller companies, Mom and Pop sites, and individuals with no option ... access to their web sites will be slow because they can't pay.
I've also heard that the companies will be able to block access to sites. This is WRONG! I want access to any and all sites at the same speed that I have now.
You talk about the cost companies have to pay in order to provide service. They are already paid by us as our ISPs. I pay my ISP a monthly fee and, in return, that ISP gives me access to the Internet.
Isn't that the best way to have the Internet ... without the intervention and "rules" of large companies and the government? I think so.
We've already seen what large companies and government can do. Do we want to expand that?
Re: Who do you think should have control over Internet conte
by Attitude2000 - 7/19/06 11:42 AM
Being on dial-up with no alternative, it all takes a day and a half to come to me anyway.
How come you have no alternative?
by BlazeEagle - 7/20/06 10:30 PM
I used to suffer with dial up too, so I feel for you. I'm lucky and grateful to have high speed access.
Can you afford and access satellite internet service?
Re: How come you have no alternative?
Rural Area. Satellite is really expensive. Looking into WiMax.
A better question is: Who has the right to control the Net?
by Dave Reynoso - 7/19/06 1:23 PM
The Internet is primarily a private network of thousands of companies that have interconnected for their own purposes and benefit. Our personal or business access to the Internet is profit in some entrepreneur's pocket--as it should be. The Internet does not belong to everyone, regardless of the rhetoric we often hear.
The companies that put the money into the infrastructure of the Internet should have the right to control what content passes over their portion of the Net, just like you as a private landowner should have the right to control who passes over your land. FREEDOM is the most important thing. FREEDOM is EVEN MORE important than people's lives! Freedom is certainly more important than our access to the Internet. If a business decides to control content on the Internet, they SHOULD and DO have that right!
What is the function of the internet?
by titan485-20744672698778238617669106802417 - 7/19/06 1:56 PM
I am for net neutrality, I have my own website and like to control whats on it. However, despite my beliefs, I am of the opinion it comes down to what you believe the internet is MAINLY for.
As it is, the internet allows people to buy things, and people to communicate.
Legistlation would give power to the service providers, who would see who paid them most, and let you have access to those services. You would not find lower prices, you would find what you COULD find, determined by the Service Providers. This would eliminate competition, and while good for rich businesses, small businesses and people who believe there are other uses of the net would be completely removed from the equation.
If you believe in heavy competition (ironically for the United States, capitalism) you may opt for the choice of net neutrality, which would ensure that richer companies couldn't simply be the only ones you literally were capable of going to.
The people, like me, who believe in free web culture and uses of the internet for the primary purpose of communication and interactions, who use the internet for entertainment and fun, would have no say whatsoever in the internet.
Many people who do not use these features could care less about us, and might see it as "good riddance", but, honestly, the internet is how many people talk; I, for one, know that talking on the internet with people (this is not as dangerous as some seem to think it is, as long as you know some basics about the web) can be a very fun experience, and can supplement times when, say, perchance, all your friends are busy and can't answer the phone.
Removing net neutrality would most certain, well, neutralize (heh) uses of the internet besides strictly business.
Service providers didnt get all that money by being stupid. If they try to lean in a certain direction that many of their customers did not like eventually the customers would simply go away. Then the companies paying for bandwidth would complain to the service providers that they were moving on to a company down the road that offers a larger customer database. due to a better variety of content. Consumers are in control of this thing. If you dont like it dont spend any money on it and I guarantee you that at some point they will provide a service that makes you the consumer happy. McDonalds dont serve 43 billion burgers because they taste good they did it because they made the experience of going to Mcdonalds more disirable than cooking dinner. If the experience was not good they would be out of business. Same with ISP they are not going to make your online experience unpleasant if possible. They know you will dump them like a hot rock and find another. Thats why it works now I guess. The ISP actually tried to provide a good online experience in order to get the customer. That will not change, Not for me anyway. I guess if there was now demand for a certain type of site or material they would drop it but if there was a site with no one viewing it its not doing anybody including the owner any good. Sharp Businessmen will keep the net on track. Content providers provide what is in demand. No one sets up a site to loose money.Public demand will dictate what happens on the web.
Except for where I live
Yes, theoretically. I live in South Dakota, though, and there are two ISP's here. (There are dial-up ISP's too, but I would rather kill myself than have dial-up.)
One ISP is much faster than the other. Even if I switched to the other, it would be a huge blow.
So, no, I couldn't drop them like a "hot rock."
Now, assume that all the ISP's, given the power all at once by the government's legislation, limit themselves to the same sites. This is not as far fetched as it sounds. (Cell carriers in the United States disable features of their phones, but there is no where else to go)
McDonald's got rich because Americans are lazy, ISP's got (not nearly as rich) because they can demand whatever they like, and you have to pay, or you don't get service.
Serv ice providers own the network...not content providers
by andysacks - 7/19/06 2:36 PM
The folks who spent thier money on the network should be able to charge whatever the market will allow. Content providers have no buisness telling network owners what they can charge. Do the network owners try to set prices for products sold by the content folks?
In reality the networks already sell more speed for more money to consumers, this ''discussion'' is about nothing more than already wealthy companies trying to squeeze price breaks from the network owners.
Right now tiered pricing exsists for tiered connection speed. The people paying less money know on the front end that they will get a slower speed than the person paying full price, why should business get a break?
Corporate America already makes sickening profits for the CEO's on the backs of the working man who rarely shares in the rewards, now they will try to force cost increases on the average guy to support thier greedy desire for low or no priced service.
Mark my words, a price break legislated for business WILL be made up by increases in consumer internet connection fee's.
Who pays the freight?
by pvilhjalmsson - 7/19/06 2:41 PM
This is a great question in a country that values the rights of the indivigual. However, I suspect that the real question is "Who is willing to finance our 'rights' and why?"
The direction that the internet is headed seems to lean towards more government regulation & control, not only for availability & content, but also security. I'm not sure that I'm ready for a much greater tax burden.
Now, if private corporations must still finance our rights to internet availability & content why shouldn't they be able to protect their investments with profits?
Also, from a totally different direction, when there is a massive disruption to normal service such as a transmission cable failure & limited capacity is available somebody needs to forget about "equal" & prioritize available resources. I've worked when banks and private businesses & the link to the control tower of an airport for the FAA were all affected. Sorry, but the banks (probably losing millions) and the private businesses didn't get their "equal" share of restoral time & resources. The FAA took priority.
No dispute unless someone wants to exercise oligopoly power
by djfredour - 7/19/06 3:58 PM
If telcos and cable companies don't want to discriminate against non-affiliated content providers, why are they spending so much time, money, and effort opposing legislation that would guarantee a bias-free Internet? Why should they have the power to charge people more to use services that they don't profit from directly? They should care about providing reliable service at low cost, not what tiers they can create to extract maximum profit from their customers. For crying out loud, there is often just one cable and one DSL provider in any given location, if that.
Biil of rights
by glasnostra - 7/19/06 5:54 PM
Assuming, that the bill of rights is still in place,
though it seems in question these days; I believe the
freedom of speech and the freedom of information should make obvious the answer to the question.
The bill of rights does not say they have to pipe the free info to your desktop at a fair rate. oNLY that it is available to you in some form. Freedom of information does not mean information is free. It means that you are free to access info by whatever means it is available by and cannot be hidden in a drawer for only a limited few to know about and benifit from. If info was free there would be alot of colleges out of business fast. But you do have the right to attend that college and pay the tuition if you want the information they have to offer.
you are free to stand outside and say what ever you like. read whatever you like. The bill of rights in no way says or even hints that they have to bring you the info or make it easy for you. Thats why people with drive and ambition fair betterthan those without, they dont just wait thinking something is owed to them, they go out and make arrangements to get what they want even if it requires alot of effort. Thats the right you have. To get off of you duff and make arrangements to get the info and things you want.No one is going to drop them off on your door. The bill of rights and the internet dont have any business being in the same conversation.
I vote for a free 'net! [more...]
by BlazeEagle - 7/19/06 6:34 PM
I don't know which side to take and as long as the net remains FREE, I frankly don't care.
Whatever the original purpose of the net was, is a moot point. My vote goes to keeping the 'net as is.
I hesitate to bring this point up, but here goes:
I'm disabled and am temporally bedridden[got VERY sick]. I bring this up because the net is my only sense of freedom, even when I'm able to get back into my power wheelchair, I'll still be unable to fully get out and fully socialise with my fellow humans.
One side of this, if put into motion, could block me from many activities non-disabled folks enjoy on a regular basis. It's too complacated to further elaborate.
This issue is overblown at the moment
by chrisleeuk - 7/20/06 12:56 AM
People have been creating scare stories about the end of a free internet for years.
The internet has never been truly free as such; certainly I've always been paying someone for it, right from my first home connection back in 1994.
In terms of the content of the internet its always been seen as free, because anyone can publish to it. But my website has never been free; I've paid for the bandwidth and the domain.
What people should remember is that beyond its use in academic circles, the internet has largely been consumer driven. If my ISP starts controlling the internet and making it a walled garden for content then as a consumer I won't be happy. Too much control, regardless of how by bandwidth control or site blocking and the internet will loose a large part of its appeal. It will become more like broadcast media, so what would be the point?
The result would be you and I stopping those monthly payments and in the end the bottom line is that money talks, our money. If one business tries to restrict our content other companies will jump into the gap to offer us the freedom we desire. AOL has been trying to keep people walled in for years, but it did not work, they just lost out to other companies.
I totally agree with you!!! You're the 1st one I've read that says it all and boils it down to the true facts. It's all about $$$ and if we all stand together and ban any kind of controlled take over, they will have to listen. I'm so tired of everything being about $$$$$$$
I agree, everythings about $$...
It all boils down to greed, plain and simple.
But, if enough speak with their pockets, they'll listen.
Some sense of it all
Thats what I have harped about in ten other post to people. We are in at least partial control. If the net ceases to be a viable means of doing business and making money it will be because the ISP tried to control the content. And the people said "Hell no we wont go. Orr something along those lines. We are the ones that the companies on the web are profiting from. If that stops because we are not happy what will happen? Along will come a provider that will try to make us happy so they can make some money. Its a business not a inalienable right of the people. And as long as it is a business they will run it in such a way that it makes money if possible. That is by creating something desirable and thats the only way. If it becomes more disireable to drive and do all your shopping at the mall you will and the man on the web will go out of business or put up a building close to the mall.
About the Internet...
I feel that the net SHOULD be an inalienable right of the people. NOT for buy&sell's sake, but for INFORMATIONS sake.
It gives disabled people like me the ability to communicate with the outside world. Without the net, this would be denied to me.
What this all boils down to is...
by Eskiegirl302 - 7/20/06 3:07 AM
Money. Plain and simple. No bs. You all forgot something. In your little tirades, escapades, to battle it out for control (power) in the end it is the user you all need.
We are the consumers who pay for all this stuff. And what do we need? INFORMATION. You can have all cables and wires you want to make it go, BUT without that content, I find it suffice to say if that were not there, I don't think I would have much use for the internet.
I like it the way it is. You all mess it up, I will see you in the far future maybe on a net just like this.