What do you all think of this? The link goes right to the FAQ so you can read exactly what's going on.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq
Printable View
What do you all think of this? The link goes right to the FAQ so you can read exactly what's going on.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq
Well, it doesn't matter now the network neutrality portion of the bill got voted off earlier today. I think this is a bigger issue to bandwidth intensive media sites than to the average publisher.
Well Senator Snowe one of the co-sponsors of the Internet neutrality bill praised on the afore mentioned site is my senator so I wrote her thanking her for her efforts and encouraged her to keep up the fight. Being that Maine is a small state population wise, its a lot easier for our voices to be heard with our Senators. Of course the flip side is we have only one Representative so the will of our state doesn't matter in the House.
The big Internet service providers (e.g. TimeWarner and Verison) have been blanketing our TV with anti-neutrality ads via their fancy sounding front organizations.
Chris may not like politics, but I think everyone on this website is in the same boat with this issue. If we do not lobby our congress men/women on this issue many of us might find our choosen method of making a living much harder as we have to start paying tolls not only to our hosting providers but also to countless Internet service providers so that they will deliver our services to their customers without interuption or delay.
I feel so helpless on this issue, I live in Canada so my opinion doesn't matter to US Senators but the outcome of their decisions will dramatically effect my livelihood. If anyone has any ideas on what I can do to help please give me some ideas.
One thing that many of us can do is put up one of the banners on our sites. At least, most everyone could put up the smaller button.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=swag
Some other things to do are giving it a mention on your sites. If you have a forum, bring it up there. Give people the link where they can sign the petition.
http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
Am I the only one not really worried about this? The simple truth is there is practically nothing we can do anyhow.
This is what the big ISPs are hoping we think so that they can create their own faux grassroots campaign to defeat Internet neutrality and then gain control of the medium.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyH
I saw one proposal the other day that tried to find some middle ground that I thought was a really good idea. It set a broadband speed definition for broadband and suggested that Internet neutrality be capped at this level. This would allow ISPs to create mega fast connections that could offer dedicated services via the mega fast connection but that other Internet traffic would still be protected to the "normal" broadband speeds. In a way this gives everyone a little of what they wanted.
The proposal could go further and state that ISPs could not advertise that they offer Internet connection speeds any faster than their maximum Internet neutral speeds.
There is actually a lot that webmasters as a group can do. If you were to count all of the webmasters that frequent Sitepoint, WebmasterWorld, and WebsitePublisher.net, you would talking about thousands of sites with an audience of a few million Americans. We have a lot of potential power, and it's not a matter of needing thousands of activists undertaking time-consuming projects. It is just a matter of putting up a link on your site, preferably with a quick editorial about it, that will take people to the online petition. Let people know that your site and others like it may not exist in the future if this issue is ignored.
We have so much potential to make a massive impact quickly with minimal effort.
Indeed. Web publishers should provide links to SaveTheInternet.com and write to the Congress persons from our state asking them to support net neutrality. We are the true grassroots and we have the ability to bring a great deal of pressure upon Congress without spending a lot of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by wintergreen
I'm in the same boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Ken, you mentioned that the ISPs were promoting anti-neutrality on TV. What's their spin to make that look good?
The ads spin the issue that big corporations like Google and Micrsoft are trying to force Net neutrality on consumers, which would stifle innovation. These ads are produced and paid for by an organization that's name sounds like some warm and fuzzy consumer oriented grassroots effort.
These ads are complete BS, but they are carefully crafted and targeted at people who have no clue, and they work unfortunately. The marketing agencies that make them get good $$ for their job. Doesn't seem like grassroots movement made much difference so far, perhaps a DDOS attack against verizon.com would be more efficient? :lol:
Reminded me of pharma industry/FDA crackdown on imports of cheaper Canadian drugs under pretense of protecting public from potentially unsafe drugs not inspected by FDA (often made in the same facility). Do they all hire the same marketing firm? :confused:
I've been following this issue for a while, but this post and the linked website just spurred me into finally writing my senator and representative. If something isn't done this could turn out very badly for anyone who makes their living online - not only publishers but hosting providers, application service providers, and software companies who rely on the net to deliver content and updates.
I'd like to meet the guy with enough bandwidth to take down verizon. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by demosfen
I informed Verizon that I will be cancelling service unless they stop lobbying the Congress. As I send them a $100 check every month, they even bothered to reply. Basically they deny everything. I am not going to reproduce their letter because you can get your own copy by writing them. It's just a paraphrase of their ad campaigns. They did mention Stymie, the guy who banned me from Sitepoint -
"...the effort to force these regulations on to telecommunications reform legislation under the soothing language of 'neutrality' could stymie efforts to pass the 'consumer choice' franchise reform measure in Congress."
I don't think the future of small web publishing is very bright in long term. Am pondering the idea of setting up organic farm in upstate as a backup source of income.
Don't you know, big business is trying to bring farm neutrality to the term organic. Afterall anything that is carbon based is technically organic. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by demosfen
Seriously, big business is trying to gut what it organically grown means.
My friend big business is out to stymiee you any way they can. :D
I'm not worried either. I think this whole thing is overblown and will only really affect the sites with HIGH bandwidth usage, i.e. video, audio. I would think most sites would operate at the same speeds they do now.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyH
In my opinion, the reality of a worst case scenario is paying a "tax" when you pay for hosting to the ISPs.
So instead of paying $5-$10 per site.. you may pay $10-$30.
Again, this is just my opinion of a potential worst case scenario. Unlikely.
For telecomms', business-wise it makes most sense to tax every site. Unless something stymies their efforts that is. Why would they ONLY want to tax high bandwidth sites, or ONLY websites with a letter x in domain? How does it maximize their bottom line? I don't see cost-based pricing (taxing only high bandwidth sites) in the picture. Value-based pricing is the best money maker. Hey, progressive tax would be ideal... :nod:
If they can tax people who don't run websites, even better. Actually why limit participation to people - aliens could be required to contribute as well. These additional resources could be used to beef up shareholder value... Err, I mean improve infrastructure, customer service, and ensure our nation's future. :yawnb:
With continual improvements in Internet technology and Web development, video and audio are becoming more and more useful and commonplace. Podcasts are a prime example. As a Webmaster, I would hate to be limited in what I can provide, and as a Web user I would hate to be limited in what I can access quickly. I'm paying for a high-speed connection for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshield
I agree 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatnewt
This is what I don't understand. The combined corporate resources of the companies that would support Net Neutrality are far, far greater than that of the telcos who are against it. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Ebay, and Yahoo are only some of the bigger players among active supporters of Net Neutrality.Quote:
Originally Posted by KLB
And yet, other than the recent mass email by Meg Whitman and some statements from Google and others, we have seen very little action from any of these corporations. Microsoft alone would be a match for the telcos in resources, and Google would easily be their match in terms of good name.
Why haven't these companies been more proactive?
If Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo, Myspace, Ask, Craigslist, Go, About, and Youtube had links on their homepages to petitions, along with a clear description of what was at stake, you would have 10 million signatures in a week. Google, Amazon, and Yahoo could also email all of their affiliates and suggest that they link to a petition as well. 10 million? In a month's time, you could have 20 million signatures. There could be a website just about members of congress and where they stand on Net Neutrality.
i'm sure they have been, but i'm sure it's the politicians ear they've been talking to. i doubt most people even realize this is going on. i also doubt the ads the telcos have been running have had any real effect on people as most don't know/understand/care about the issue. IMMHO, MS and crew would be better off just targetting the politicians rather than trying to sway public opinion as it's so low (or even non-existent) on most people's radar screens.Quote:
Originally Posted by wintergreen
I have heard actually that newer companies like Google don't really understand how to play the political game, whereas entrenched companies like the telcos have been doing it for decade. And yet, how hard can it be? You would think there would be experts in Washington they could hire to do just that. They don't have a shortage of money.
The telcos are at a severe disadvantage, as companies like Google and Yahoo are content providers. They have daily audiences that number in the 10s of millions. Plus, people like them. Not many people feel an affection for AT&T or Verizon, but Amazon and Yahoo and Google have positive mindshare the telcos could only dream of.
IOW, I agree with you, they don't need to do a damn thing with commercials and so forth. But they could easily afford to if they have to. However, throwing around $40 million or so to congressional "charities", which would be nothing to an entity like Google or MSN or Ebay, would easily buy the legislation they need.
It is sad that it has come to this, but that is how corrupt our current system is. And with money to counterbalance the telcos, you could take the war to them. There is a LOT of dirt on these companies for some enterprising members of the House and Senate to dig up. Check this out:
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm
Or read this quote:
"Approaching the situation through a slightly different lens, AT&T's path back to Ma Bell status involved the conglomeration of SBC, Ameritech, PacBell, SNET, and AT&T Wireless, at a cost of roughly $140 billion. In the process, their market capitalization increased only $40 billion. Ironically, the $100 billion that disappeared is roughly what it would cost to run fiber to every American household.
"Now AT&T is lining up to spend another $67 billion on BellSouth, while Verizon has a $38 billion offer on the table to buy out its partner in Verizon Wireless. And yet they expect consumers to believe that they are short on capital and cannot afford to build their network without the elimination of Network Neutrality."
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=lie2
I'm waiting for the day when Google offers nationwide Internet connection services. (free cable modem included with gmail account! :))
Okay I might get a gmail account with this offer. :brow:Quote:
Originally Posted by icebane
As has been pointed out, Google and the other newer powerhouses really don't have a lot of expierence lobbying congress and they haven't had decades to build up personal relationships with the political establishment the way the big telcos have.
"Why haven't these companies been more proactive?"
That's because it won't affect them to the degree the hippies say it will. This whole 'net neutrality' is just a push for a more regulated Internet. Let the free markets work.
I agree one-hundred percent. There seem to be a lot of histrionics in all corners related to what is essentially a government imposed "speed limit" on the internet. These same "evil corporations" are the ones that built the internet into the marketplace it is today, and I don't think blocking access to any net resource is in their best interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshield
Does a small internet publisher need the same traffic priority as Amazon? If Amazon is paying to improve the backbone of the same internet you publish over, isn't that good for the publisher as well? The big evil telcos are not going to redirect your incoming links to other evil companies, they're going to allow companies that require more bandwidth and more relible services to pay for it. God Bless Them.
The end result of "net-neutrality", like every government program, is going to be to shift cost to small businesses that huge businesses were already paying for. The passage of Net-Neutrality would /not/ be maintaining the status quo, it would be putting another huge government gorilla on the back of an industry that does just fine without it, thank you.
I will definitely get screwed with congress votes against net neutrality.
http://www.realboring.com/net-neutrality/
AmbulanceBlues, the point you are missing is that web publishers are already paying to help build and support the Internet backbone via our web hosting fees, which are tied to how much bandwidth we need. What TimeWarner and the other ISPs want to do is charge us a second fee to gain access to users on their networks.
Nobody is asking for more regulation. What we are asking for is a reinstatement of the regulations that had been in place until very recently.
What you seem to forget is that the companies that are fighting the hardest against network neutrality are AT&T and the baby bells. I will remind you that AT&T refused the contracts to build the Internet initially and is the same company that fought against regulations that would allow the consumer to connect any type of device they wanted to their telephone connection (e.g. fax machines, answering machines, non-AT&T/Bell telephones, etc.) The companies that are fighting against network neutrality are the same companies that had to be drug kicking and screaming into supporting the Internet. They aren't the innovators; they are the impediment to innovation.
BTW, Amazon.com who you use as an example is a supporter of network neutrality and yes they spend way more on internet connectivity than I do each year, but they also use like a billion times more bandwidth than I do.
The fight against network neutrality isn't to protect or foster innovation (the innovations they are now promising were already promised to us years ago as part of other deregulation). The big Internet service providers are fighting against network neutrality because they want to continue to charge the consumer high prices for Internet access and then turn around and charge a fee to content providers to make sure their content gets delivered as it should.
The traditional arrangement with the Internet is that each party pays for their own side of the access to the Internet backbone, which also helps pay to support the backbone. What this means is that I pay a web hosting firm to host my website and provide my website with access to the Internet backbone. The fee I pay is based on how much bandwidth my site uses. On the other side of the equation the consumer pays an Internet service provider for the level of access they want to the Internet. If the consumer only wants to pay for dialup, they only get dialup speeds.
If network neutrality is not reestablished on the Internet, the consumer will still be paying for the level of service they want, but then the website operator will have to begin to pay a second fee to the consumer's Internet service provider in addition to their web hosting provider in order for the consumer to gain access to the website operator's website at the speeds the consumer is already paying for.
Here in California I've experienced the deregulation of telephone and power utilities, and I'll tell you even though we were promised that free markets would lead to consumer gains...that's not how it worked out. Where have all the baby bells gone? Everything is ATT again. Who benefitted not the consumer! Remember the Enron tapes where executives laughed about sticking it to California....they did.