How Will Net Neutrality Effect SotT?

U

Ubermensch

Guest
Hello Everyone,

I'm new to this webpage and I would first like to say thank you for doing what all of you are doing. There has been rising concern about the net neutrality issue and I wanted to know what the SotT staff thinks about how this will effect not only signs-of-the-times.org, but the internet in general.

I would also like to help, so where do I start?

Ubermensch
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Ubermensch said:
There has been rising concern about the net neutrality issue and I wanted to know what the SotT staff thinks about how this will effect not only signs-of-the-times.org, but the internet in general.

I would also like to help, so where do I start?

Ubermensch
A good way to start would by explaining in details, what is "the neutrality issue", provide references, and explain the "concerns": what are they, who is rising them and why. Explicit examples always help.

P.S. And do you think choosing a nickname "Ubermensch" is "neutral"?
 
U

Ubermensch

Guest
I apologize, I assumed that most people knew the details of "net neutrality," since it concerns every website on the internet.

Here are a few websites concerning "the neutrality issue":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
http://savetheinternet.com/
http://news.com.com/Democrats+lose+House+vote+on+Net+neutrality/2100-1028_3-6065465.html
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081882.html

Myself and many others defending net neutrality are mainly concerned with the descrimination of internet in the United States. ISP's will be able to descriminate and give priority in bandwidth to websites that they see fit. The problem with this is that websites will be forced to pay ISPs a certain amount of fees based on the traffic that they generate for using their lines. So non-profit websites such as this one, or wikipedia.org will not be able to keep running if they can not afford those fees due to a high volume of traffic. In the beginning, non-profit websites that will not be able to cover their costs will suffer a loss in audience due to a lack of speed. Viewers in the United States might have to wait much longer for your website content to load; if it loads at all.

And no, I don't think my alias is neutral.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Ubermensch said:
Myself and many others defending net neutrality are mainly concerned with the descrimination of internet in the United States. ISP's will be able to descriminate and give priority in bandwidth to websites that they see fit.
I do not understand the issue. ISP's are not only in the US. If the ISPs in the US will become too expensive, there will be options to choose an ISP in Madagascar, for instance.
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
I don't think it will be that easy, since the Madagascar ISP will still have to go through the lines into one's house in the USA (or be beamed down from satellites for WiFi). Those lines will be controlled by the Verizons and Comcasts. That's why Verizon and Comcast pushed so hard for that law. They feel they have invested in all the lines, servers and other infrastructure (borrowing tons to do it) and they need a return on their investment.

Don

ark said:
Ubermensch said:
Myself and many others defending net neutrality are mainly concerned with the descrimination of internet in the United States. ISP's will be able to descriminate and give priority in bandwidth to websites that they see fit.
I do not understand the issue. ISP's are not only in the US. If the ISPs in the US will become too expensive, there will be options to choose an ISP in Madagascar, for instance.
 
U

Ubermensch

Guest
DonaldJHunt said:
I don't think it will be that easy, since the Madagascar ISP will still have to go through the lines into one's house in the USA (or be beamed down from satellites for WiFi). Those lines will be controlled by the Verizons and Comcasts. That's why Verizon and Comcast pushed so hard for that law. They feel they have invested in all the lines, servers and other infrastructure (borrowing tons to do it) and they need a return on their investment.
Precisely. That is why this is such a huge problem, especially since most of the world does not know about this issue. Only people surfing the web would run into this issue because this is something that the mass media has chosen not to cover- and for good reason. Once Congress implements the law to squash net neutrality, the ISPs will begin their filtering process. This is the first step to control the internet. The first step to allow ISPs to prioritize what websites should and shouldn't receive more traffic due to bandwidth restrictions.

I know that I am going to cancel my internet service once this happens, but the sheeple won't.
 
P

paulnotbilly

Guest
Ubermensch said:
That is why this is such a huge problem, especially since most of the world does not know about this issue. Only people surfing the web would run into this issue because this is something that the mass media has chosen not to cover- and for good reason. Once Congress implements the law to squash net neutrality, the ISPs will begin their filtering process. This is the first step to control the internet. The first step to allow ISPs to prioritize what websites should and shouldn't receive more traffic due to bandwidth restrictions.

I know that I am going to cancel my internet service once this happens, but the sheeple won't.
This has been mentioned in the UK, as usual a mention then disappear. Tends to happen a lot. The two names 'ebay' and 'amazon' were in the first few lines of the article. Found this though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5129964.stm

Open net calls fall on deaf ears

Critics fear the plans could lead to limits on consumer choice

Internet campaigners have failed in a bid to prevent plans for a so-called "two-tier" internet from going ahead.

A US Senate committee has approved a bill which aims to let internet service providers provide some customers - and companies - with preferential services.

Under the plans, providers would be allowed to give customers faster internet access for a fee.

"Net neutrality" campaigners have attacked the plan, saying there should be equal access for all web users.

The critics argue that the wildfire growth of online services has been driven by the ability to deliver services to anyone.

If telecoms firms could block or slow down access to their customers unless services providers paid extra, that would be threatened, they say.

After a three-day hearing, the committee rejected an amendment from Republican senator Olympia Snowe and Democrat Byron Dorgan which aimed to prohibit phone and cable companies from limiting access to their high-speed internet networks based on site content or financial arrangements.

"What's at stake is the internet in the 21st century," said Ms Snowe. "This is the preservation of digital democracy."

Limited access?

Hundreds of interest groups - including Google, eBay and Amazon - have been lobbying for protection from any moves by broadband providers to limit the access of customers.

The proposals aims to make it easier for telecoms firms to offer video services around America by replacing 30,000 local franchise boards with a national system overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Supporters claim it will save consumers money, while critics fear it will see net providers decide which websites and services customers can visit and use.

The bill has already won backing in Congress, but Senator John Kerry, who supports the Snowe amendment, has threatened to delay it with a filibuster - a method used to delay or postpone the passage of legislation.

PS: as you mention, the sheeple will odds on, pay the extra fees that'll be levied once the companies start paying up. Are you prepared to pay the extra bucks to keep fully up-to-date on REAL news, not the 'corporate broadcasts'?
 
T

tschai

Guest
If you subscribe to cable internet as I do, you already have to pay extra to have access to "faster" internet-but most folks computers can only handle information transfer at a certain rate anyway (hardware limitations) so it would not have much affect on them anyway.

Many sites are changing to "subscription" only-like some major online versions of magazines and newspapers-or they are free and charge only if wish to download something, or want access to special content. If they can make a buck, they are going to do so...and as said most will ante up for access to real news vs. BS (we all know where to come for the REAL news, don't we-and it is FREE thanks to SOTT-THANKS GUYS!!!)

I have nothing against sites making money-it costs a lot to operate servers and maintain the equipment, protect them against virus and denial of service attacks, etc.-but we all know they just won't stop at making a "fair" amount to cover operational costs-like the phone companies and most utilities they start adding on all these mysterious 'additional" charges-you end up paying for everything the companies should shell out for-including the CEO's Mercedes, office re-decorating, Johnnies braces on his teeth and who knows what all...
 
U

Ubermensch

Guest
tschai said:
If you subscribe to cable internet as I do, you already have to pay extra to have access to "faster" internet-but most folks computers can only handle information transfer at a certain rate anyway (hardware limitations) so it would not have much affect on them anyway.
Right, but this is much different to what ISPs/Government are trying to pass now.

Although users may have to pay "extra fees," these fees will hit the hardest for non-profit websites in order to maintain their current or future traffic for using the ISPs lines. If these payments can not be afforded, then their traffic will dwindle down and eventually die.

The main problem here is that "Internet campaigners have failed in a bid to prevent plans for a so-called "two-tier" internet from going ahead." Once this happens, like I said before - this is the first step to regulating the internet; hence regulating the content.

The democracy of the internet is at stake here so I wanted to know...what are non-profit websites like SotT going to do to prepare for such a disaster?
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Uber said:
The democracy of the internet is at stake here so I wanted to know...what are non-profit websites like SotT going to do to prepare for such a disaster?
Well, we have the sign up thing for SOTT to be emailed. Just now, we email it every day to 1420 people with a total of 2100 signed up for it in case the site is down. So, I guess we will start encouraging people to sign up for the email version and to pass it on to their friends as well.

We already pay a small fortune in monthly internet fees, totally supported by donations from readers and book sales. We pay for four servers, in four countries, (we have a dedicated server for SOTT and unlimited bandwidth and that ain't cheap) and satellite for the house where we all work. So, we'll see how it affects us. I don't think we'll have to start charging for content, we'll just work on selling more books to pay for it. We don't mind working harder to keep things free for our readers because they always come through for us when we need it.
 
U

Ubermensch

Guest
Laura said:
Well, we have the sign up thing for SOTT to be emailed. Just now, we email it every day to 1420 people with a total of 2100 signed up for it in case the site is down. So, I guess we will start encouraging people to sign up for the email version and to pass it on to their friends as well.
Good call on the e-mail. That is something that they will never be able to stop.

laura said:
We already pay a small fortune in monthly internet fees, totally supported by donations from readers and book sales. We pay for four servers, in four countries, (we have a dedicated server for SOTT and unlimited bandwidth and that ain't cheap) and satellite for the house where we all work. So, we'll see how it affects us. I don't think we'll have to start charging for content, we'll just work on selling more books to pay for it. We don't mind working harder to keep things free for our readers because they always come through for us when we need it.
I'm afraid it will only get more expensive when this happens. "Unlimited bandwidth" will no longer be an option and surfing in the vast oceans of the internet will be narrowed down to boogie boarding on the limited shores of the seas. It is my hope that this measure to restrict information on the world wide web in America does not spread to Europe or any other country.
 

Peam

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Ubermensch said:
The democracy of the internet is at stake here so I wanted to know...what are non-profit websites like SotT going to do to prepare for such a disaster?
Just wondering Uber, have you posted on other forums and asked the same question or is this forum the first one you've asked? and if this is your first call, did you pick this forum randomly?
 
U

Ubermensch

Guest
Peam said:
Just wondering Uber, have you posted on other forums and asked the same question or is this forum the first one you've asked? and if this is your first call, did you pick this forum randomly?
I post on various forums, such as Digg, Shoutwire, Reddit, theliberty, and mostly a lot of 9/11 websites. I refer people to SotT alot and I just realized that this site offers a forum! I've asked the same questions, but in the end, the only thing to do is to call your "representative." =/
 
Well, thanks for this kind reference to your comments on Digg.com, Untermensch.

Goodbye.

Added later: these comments are not from Ubermensch posting on SOTT, as he stated. My apologies for this.

[quote=
 

Niall

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Ubermensch, were the above your posts? Salleles, more information please! What are your experiences with Uber? Are you sure this is the same Ubermensch?
 
Top Bottom