Hello:

There's talk afoot that the internet is going to be regulated... Should it be? If it should, what rules should be promulgated?

I've talked about the beginning of our economy BEFORE businessmen got politicians to do 'em some favors. There were no rules. The market favored nobody, but the successful. But, to BE successful, you had to PRODUCE. Sadly, some businessmen discovered, that the edge their business acumen didn't provide, bribing a politician did. And, the floodgates were opened...

I LOVED it when there were no rules... It was free. Free is good. It wasn't fair. Fair had nothing to do with it. If you wanted fair, YOU had to be aware. You couldn't rely on the government to be aware for you. Besides, once rules were being made, how do you know WHO the real beneficiary of the rules are?

Today's internet IS that rough and tumble FREE marketplace. You can buy ANYTHING. You can SEE anything. You can learn to DO anything. You can publish anything. You can communicate with anybody. You can start your own website. You can compete with the big guys from your FIRST day. And, no. It's not fair. It's free. Fair has NOTHING to do with it. If you want fair, you have to be aware. You can't rely on government. Because there are no rules, I LOVE it.

Well, that's just TOO damn free for some. They want RULES! And, they're going to get 'em, too. What kind of rules do you want?

We've got one side, the FCC, saying the rules should guarantee the internet's openness... But, it IS already open, isn't it? That's the whole idea. How can RULES insure its openness?? Seems contradictory to me. The other side wants rules that guarantee the survival of competition. But, we don't want rules to insure the survival of somebody who should fail, do we?

I don't have the answer. I like the internet the way Al Gore invented it...

excon

You are chasing an illusion Ex the internet is a place where governments are deprived of taxes, pornographers sell their wares and the unwary and ignorant are cheated and you think this is a good thing, worthy of preservation. Wake up man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

and you think this is a good thing, worthy of preservation. Wake up man!

---

Hello clete:

I'm used to going it alone - forging the way for others...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I'm used to going it alone - forging the way for others...

---

The way I see it Ex, it is more like going around and around the mountain, you keep coming back to the same subjects with the same comments. The way ahead with the internet as it is with all pioneering, there is a time for the homesteaders to move in and plow the land and law to replace chaos. This is how civilisation grows. That barbed wire is a nuiance isn't it

I wish the internet could return to the days of old. If I were making the rules I would send it back to the time from when it stated. Yes, I was there from the beginning. The internet was never inteded for corporate use at all. And it seems more and more places are wanting money to participate. Also giant hunks are being taken over and grabbing bandwidth more and more by pay as you go. This crap needs to stop. If they want to run those kind of services then let them have their own corporate internet and leave mine alone. Everything is slowing down and more and more its becoming a part of peoples lives. Its being over saturated. It needs to stop and some rethinking go on to where everyone can live with it.

I think a distinction has to be made between the WEB and the Internet. The Internet was originally started as a way for the US Dept of Defense to communicate with its contractors many of whom were academic institutions doing research. The academics found value in this form of communication and it blossomed. Early computer users also made it grow. But it was still a geek's world though an international one, until Tim Berners-Lee developed HTML and the WEB. And it became mainstream.

Do I think the Internet should be regulated? Beyond the regulation that currently exist (and there is some, but its mostly tech rules) no. But I do think the WEB should be regulated, but only so far as things are regulated in the "real world". For example, there HAS to be accountability. In the real world people and companies can be held accountable for their actions. In the cyber world, too often, there is no such accountability. So all the rights AND responsibilities that people have in the "real world" need to be extended to the cyber world. In my opinion no one should be able to access the WEB unless their identity can be traced. There does need to be protections and limitations as to who can do this tracing, but there needs to be that accountability. How many Ghanese women would be trying to get men to pay for them to come to the man's country for marriage, if they could be tracked to there real identity? How many Nigerians would be offering to share the accounts of some dead person if they could be tracked? How many pedophiles would try to lure young girls or boys if the could be traced?

Its unfortunate but the Web (and by extension the Net) has become a dangerous place in many ways. But there are many, many good things about the WEB that needs to be preserved as well.

Then you should be proud of the "party of no."

Senate GOP to FCC: Don’t even try it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

The way I see it Ex, it is more like going around and around the mountain, you keep coming back to the same subjects with the same comments.

---

Hello again, clete:

Yet, I still maintain your interest...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Then you should be proud of the "party of no."

Senate GOP to FCC: Don't even try it

---

I don't think you understand the issue at hand or what's written in that article you posted. People like Comcast want to establish a pay-for tiered system for internet access. The FCC wants to impose net neutrality that says that all data is equal, the GOP opposes this saying that internet access companies can charge content providers to use their pipes. Basically the GOP is against net neutrality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I don't think you understand the issue at hand

---

Hello again, NK:

I don't understand much... I wish I knew what was fair... Should I be charged the same as my neighbor, because I consume a TINY bit of bandwidth? I only email and kibbitz here, but he watches MOVIES all day, using a TON of bandwidth??

Do I trust the GOP to protect the internet?? Given WHO they represent, NO! If there isn't ANY of you who think they don't want to give CORPORATE AMERICA an advantage, you haven't been paying attention...

Do I trust the libs to protect the internet?? No! They ALL want to make rules. In my view, it's the MAKING of rules that RESTRICTS the internet - not necessarily WHAT the rule says.

This is actually a crucial issue. Once a direction is taken, it'll go that way for the duration. If EITHER direction is taken, the internet you grew up with, will NEVER be the same.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, NK:

I don't understand much... I wish I knew what was fair... Should I be charged the same as my neighbor, because I consume a TINY bit of bandwidth? I only email and kibbitz here, but he watches MOVIES all day, using a TON of bandwidth???

---

That would be charging by usage and that would be OK, since the provider still allows all bits to be equal.

Here's a good overview on net neutrality: Network Neutrality Explained

If this is not what your thread is about then I apologize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

If this is not what your thread is about then I apologize.

---

Hello again, NK:

That's EXACTLY what this thread is about. I learned a lot in your link - especially that Al Gore didn't invent the internet. Cool.

So, this is a battle between ISP's and everybody else including the big corporations... Certainly, Comcast is going to want me to watch the Universal Studio movies they're going to own when they buy GE, so if they CAN, I'll bet they'd slow down Netflix.

Moby Disk agrees with me, in that NO rules = network neutrality.

excon

Good link from NK, but they spelled Tim Berners-Lee's name wrong.

There are already some tiered systems. My carrier, Cablevision, offers higher speed access at an increased fee. And I don't have a problem with that, but once you connect, there should be no preference given to one connection over another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Good link from NK, but they spelled Tim Berners-Lee's name wrong.

There are already some tiered systems. My carrier, Cablevision, offers higher speed access at an increased fee. And I don't have a problem with that, but once you connect, there should be no preference given to one connection over another.

---

Right now it's the cable companies that are ruining the internet. Also most providers are starting to scale back on services you pay for. Its called "throttling" and they reduce your band width or interrupt your connection.

They are worried that with high speed comes new content. Just like Charter Communication has its sites on YouTube and ruining you from seeing videos.

Its sad because they are making the rules as they go.

Bear in mind there is much more to the Internet than the WWW ;)

Oh yeah and Tim is a SIR, not that really means much to non-Brits.

This subject pops up time and again, normally by some "crusading" Yank politco, but once they actually realise the enormity of the subject it is soon forgotten about.
Technically The US President has the power to turn the internet off, or so they think.

Ok the majority of Root DNS servers are in the US, but it would not stop the underlying functionality. After all the net was designed along military specs of obsolescence and redundancy.

Just look at the scales we are talking about in some cases, like Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
The US government is currently attempting to silence Wikileaks and FAILING!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I don't think you understand the issue at hand or what's written in that article you posted. People like Comcast want to establish a pay-for tiered system for internet access. The FCC wants to impose net neutrality that says that all data is equal, the GOP opposes this saying that internet access companies can charge content providers to use their pipes. Basically the GOP is against net neutrality.

---

I understand the issue and since it hasn't happened in congress, Obama's FCC wants to establish net neutrality by fiat. They don't have that authorization, do you understand that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curlyben

Bear in mind there is much more to the Internet than the WWW ;)

Oh yeah and Tim is a SIR, not that really means much to non-Brits.

This subject pops up time and again, normally by some "crusading" Yank politco, but once they actually realise the enormity of the subject it is soon forgotten about.
Technically The US President has the power to turn the internet off, or so they think.

Ok the majority of Root DNS servers are in the US, but it would not stop the underlying functionality. After all the net was designed along military specs of obsolescence and redundancy.

Just look at the scales we are talking about in some cases, like Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
The US government is currently attempting to silence Wikileaks and FAILING !!!

---

I have not commented on this subject to this point because it really is too complex to deal with in a single discussion. In an ideal world that Ex envisions everything is free and open and accessible and there is no harm that comes from it. I really wish I could take that position because I really do see how authoritarian governments repress information.

On the other hand I already have expressed concern over issues like intellectual property theft ,and the compromising of national security ,the recruitment of criminal and terrorist activity.

Here in NY there is a story about a serial killer on Long Island. They are focusing on a missing women who answered a solicitation for a prostitution on Craig'slist. She is probably a victim of this serial killer.
What civilized nation can allow this type of activity under the guise of freedom ?

I'll continue to favor a balance . That is in my view part of the social contract. There would be no need for nations if there wasn't a need for protections an individual can't fully provide on their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I understand the issue and since it hasn't happened in congress, Obama's FCC wants to establish net neutrality by fiat. They don't have that authorization, do you understand that?

---

This has been going on much longer than Obama has been in office.

Interesting stuffs that belongs here: New UN committee could hand governments internet control ? The Register

Re :Net neutrality... if Viacom and Comcast treat internet service like they do cable television,then I am in favor of doing what is necessary to prevent it.
...
The UN is a sinister organization that has long passed it's usefulness. What is the UN 's accomplishment this year?. bringing cholera to Haiti...