Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: save the Internet?

  1. #16
    Site Contributor KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Saco Maine
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by demosfen
    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.

    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.
    Ken Barbalace - EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Environmental Careers, Blog)
    InternetSAR.org: Volunteers Assisting Search and Rescue via the Internet
    My Firefox Theme Classic Compact: Based onFirefox's classic theme but uses much less window space

  2. #17
    Registered Member moonshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyH
    Am I the only one not really worried about this? The simple truth is there is practically nothing we can do anyhow.
    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.

  3. #18
    Senior Member Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    840
    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.
    Kyle

  4. #19
    Registered demosfen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    71
    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...

    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.
    Reality is the leading cause of stress amongst those in touch with it

  5. #20
    Registered fatnewt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by moonshield
    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.
    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.

  6. #21
    Junior Registered
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by fatnewt
    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.
    I agree 100%.

  7. #22
    Junior Registered
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by KLB
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by wintergreen; 06-12-2006 at 11:07 PM.

  8. #23
    Registered bbolte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by wintergreen
    Why haven't these companies been more proactive?
    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.

  9. #24
    Junior Registered
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    8
    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
    Support Net Neutrality. Learn more at SavetheInternet and sign the petition

  10. #25
    Senior Member Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    840
    I'm waiting for the day when Google offers nationwide Internet connection services. (free cable modem included with gmail account! )
    Kyle

  11. #26
    Site Contributor KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Saco Maine
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by icebane
    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.

    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.
    Ken Barbalace - EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Environmental Careers, Blog)
    InternetSAR.org: Volunteers Assisting Search and Rescue via the Internet
    My Firefox Theme Classic Compact: Based onFirefox's classic theme but uses much less window space

  12. #27
    Registered Member moonshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    1,281
    "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.

  13. #28
    I see mildly ill people. AmbulanceBlues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by moonshield
    "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.

    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.

  14. #29
    Senior Member thebillionaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    746
    I will definitely get screwed with congress votes against net neutrality.

    http://www.realboring.com/net-neutrality/

  15. #30
    Site Contributor KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Saco Maine
    Posts
    1,181
    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.
    Ken Barbalace - EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Environmental Careers, Blog)
    InternetSAR.org: Volunteers Assisting Search and Rescue via the Internet
    My Firefox Theme Classic Compact: Based onFirefox's classic theme but uses much less window space

Similar Threads

  1. email I got from MoveOn.org
    By demosfen in forum Internet Industry News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-22-2006, 11:46 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-16-2006, 10:13 PM
  3. Tips: Enhance Your Traffic and Internet Income
    By net6pay in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-13-2005, 07:04 PM
  4. Pocket PCs - Internet
    By Mike in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-01-2004, 03:11 PM
  5. Best Internet book?
    By Mike in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-02-2003, 12:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •