MyDD :: Net Neutrality and the solution

Net Neutrality and the solution

by donkeykong, Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 02:36:43 PM EST

Just read a very good idea.

As you know AT&T and friends are trying to make the internet more expensive so that only websites that make big money can afford to have a large reader base.

So to get the fastest bandwidth AT&T wants to charge Google to provide you the data you want and have already paid AT&T to get.

GOP likes it.

But here is key to defeat it....The major winners are porn sites! This is a GOP porn sponsorship bill.

If you can control the net-neutrality name and instead call it the faster porn bill it dies.

Tags: Net Neutrality and the solution (all tags)

Permalink :: 9 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Net Neutrality and the solution (none / 0)

Actually, I think what people want to do is to have sites and companies that use a lot of bandwidth help pay for the buildout and deployment of new networks.

by dem1 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 03:21:19 PM EST

Re: Net Neutrality and the solution (3.00 / 1)

This is not true. Internet speeds on the backplane are fiber optic/ gigabit speed.

Telcos have upgraded their backbone tech. sixteen times over since.

Nobody will get faster, or slower service from the brazen attempt by the telcos - after they tried to get the anti-network legislature passed and ultimately succeeded in doing so, in the middle of the night, by forcing it through a rules committee -

Nobody will get faster, better or different service as a result of America abandoning the principles upon which the internet was built.

Big companies that want high speed servers already pay big fees. The telcos just want to set things up so that they can rig the system to claim higher fees, for reaons you couldn't verify locally. Its about money to them. In America today, that means - goodness.

by turnerBroadcaste on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 04:20:05 PM EST

Re: Net Neutrality and the solution (3.00 / 1)

I don't think that's right - look at speeds in countries that are ranked higher than the U.S. - we need companies to invest in building out higher speed networks.

And what principles are you talking about?

by dem1 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 04:40:58 PM EST

They already (3.00 / 1)

Get paid by bandwidth usage. There's plenty of revenue stream for increases in the backbone. What they want is above normal profit by creating additional charges, while pretending that's required to fund buildout. Which is utter bollocks.

by ElitistJohn on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They already (none / 0)

You're completely off on the economics here - these companies are talking about putting billions of dollars into infrastructure - there is no way existing revenue streams pays for that without consumer bills going through the roof. It just stands to reason that if a company is using a huge amount of bandwidth, they should pay for that usage.

by dem1 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They already (none / 0)

You've got to be kidding me. The add-on services and upgrades to base will more than pay for the build-out. What the telcos want is a gold plated guarantee of return and to cherry pick the market.

by irsouth2 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Net Neutrality and the solution (none / 0)

Three big issues: speech tolling, content discrimination, exploitable complication.

We have freedom of speech when people get their information via pay-per-view. If politicians have to pay to run ads, they have to beg from rich folks for campaign funds. Let the watchers and listeners pay for what they really want to see and hear, unless you want all speech to become the incredibly expensive luxury of a ruling class.

Today, if you send a birthday card to your aunt, you are subsidizing low mailing fees for nefarious organizations and bill collectors. The mammoth corporations enjoy a virtual franking privilege, on our tab. That is no good. It is not content neutral. Everyone should pay according to how large their letter is. In the case of internet browsing, the browser subscribers ought to pay on a content-neutral, bit-per-month basis, since they initiate the communication. This, with toll-free speech, would make the fees for sites like MyDD very tiny, and everyone could compete to be heard.

The issue of exploitable complication is hard to describe, since there are so many ways to trick people with shell games. If you use that insanely complicated operating system that came bundled with your computer, with its "registry," 9,000 "patches," etc., you know about that.

by blues on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:43:57 AM EST

no (none / 0)

I already pay for my connection to the internet and google, for example, already pays what I'm sure is a very hefty sum to connect its machines to the internet. If the telcos think they aren't getting enough money, they should just raise their rates and let the market sort it out. Instead they'd rather get some corporate welfare in the shape of new legislation that kills net neutrality.
It seems we have some astroturfers on this site, becauase I can't believe for one second a citizen would want this. Notice the blognames, dem1 and blues, like they have to help show that they're on our side. ha!

by johne on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:14:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no (none / 0)

I came up with "blues" long before the 2004 "election," when I was blogging on repentantnadervoter (dot) com, then (dot) org. So that was long before the advent of the red / blue paradigm, and I am "blues" on at least 35 sites, according to my password vault.

I am not suggesting a "rate increase" at all, but just a different price structure that would preclude corporate censorship.

by blues on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.