Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality

[Jane M]

Is anyone else following the battle in Congress over Internet Neutrality? It has me more than a little worried.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

I do believe the effects would be world wide.

[Troub]

The corporate machine controls eveything else in this country, and now they are pushing towards controlling the last bastion of true freedom, the place where everyone is equal.

Its a shame that money has the power to control our policys and laws.

I hope in the end, that the people succeed.

[Jane M]

Quoted from http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat


"Blocking Innovation
The threat to an open internet isn't just speculation -- we've seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control.
Corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:
In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked (http://www.freepress.net/news/13604) their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers (http://www.telecomreview.ca/epic/internet/intprp-gecrt.nsf/vwapj/Geist_Michael.pdf/$FILE/Geist_Michael.pdf) from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades (http://www.freepress.net/news/14860) the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails (http://www.freepress.net/news/14960) that mentioned www.dearaol.com (http://www.dearaol.com/)-- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they'll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet."

[Jane M]

Quote from PhysOrg.com Globe Talk: The not-so-neutral Internet

"The problem, however, is unless legislators take action, the let's-just-see-what-happens attitude of the Internet system might be at the mercy of those who currently have the upper hand in providing people access to the World Wide Web in the first place. "

http://www.physorg.com/news66716918.html

[Risker]

Currently in the UK several ISP's have introduced packet shaping, a technique used to reduce download speeds of certain types of information on the internet (it can also prevent it entirely or set a limit to the amount you can download). This is done to reduce the load on the ISP's resources.

When ISP's do this, people either vote with their feet and find another ISP or they find a way to get around it.

So as long as we still have a choice of ISP's I think we're pretty safe.

[Jane M]

I disagree. Net Neutrality is something we have to keep careful guard over.

[Risker]

Hrm, I didn't really mean safe, I'm a bit hungover today and so having difficulty in articulating what I mean. I think I may have to come back to this thread later.

[Jane M]

A video explaining Net Neutrality is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U&search=internet%20neutrality

[Tigerlily]

It's cute how they called it the "Internet's First Amendment". More proof Americans think they own the internet. :rolleyes:

[Jane M]

That's exactly why I can't understand why more countries are paying attention! This will have world wide affect.

[John]

Whether you think that Americans own the Internet or not, it was created with US tax dollars and is administered in California.

[Jane M]

"The development of what we now call the Internet started in 1957 when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the first satellite, beating the United States into space. The powers behind the American military at the time became highly alarmed as this meant that the USSR could theoretically launch bombs into space, and then drop them anywhere on earth. In 1958 the concerns of people in the US military triggered the creation of the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).DARPA's initial role was to jump start American research in technology, find safeguards against a space-based missile attack and to reclaim the technological lead from the USSR. After only 18 months after the creation of DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency had developed and deployed the first US satellite. DARPA went on to have a direct contribution to the development of the Internet by appointing Joseph Licklider to head the new Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO).
It was the job of the IPTO to further the work previously done my members of the "SAGE" (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) program and develop technologies to protect the US against a space-based nuclear attack.
Licklider envisaged the potential benefits of a countrywide communications network, influencing his successors to implement his vision and to hire Lawrence Roberts who at that time was carrying out research with networks which was also being funded by DARPA.
Roberts led development of the ARPANet network architecture, and based it on the new idea of packet switching. A special computer called an Interface Message Processor was developed to realise the design. The ARPANet first went live in October 1969, with communications between the University of California in Los Angeles and the Stanford Research Institute.
The first networking protocol used on the ARPANet was the Network Control Program. In 1983, it was replaced with the TCP/IP protocol, which is still the standard used today."
from the site "How the Internet was Invented"
http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~c9814405/cp2014/howwastheinternetinvented.htm

Thus it was invented for military reasons by the US. However, does the US have the right to control it? More, specifically does a company such as AT&T have the right to?

[Jane M]

"As the fight over Net Neutrality or "Internet Freedom" heats up, Web sites and spin by industry front groups and high-priced consultants are popping up daily, as cable and phone companies spend millions to to mislead and misinform the American public."

Josh Silver: Net Neutrality: Telcos' Big Lie
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060513/cm_huffpost/020951

[Mr Flibble]

Since when did 'internet' access stop being a product and become a service?

As risker says, traffic shapping, firewalling etc have been happening for years and it's in your ISP's T&Cs. I see no reason why ethically speaking companies can't moderate or degrade you access to other companies based on what is commercially viable for them. There's no difference between your ISP blocking a site and your TV company pulling your favourite show. Lots of networks also filter content and block sites. I work for a company that produces kit to block access to tens of thousands of pornographic/illegal sites for education networks. Plenty of companies do the same - accessing the net is not a human right it is a luxury.

If laws were to be put in place saying that there has to be the same Quality of Service between your computer and all others in the world then technically speaking it would just be impossible. Here's an example of why: bandwidth costs money, not just to consumers but to ISPs. Bandwidth costs money generally dependant on the cost of the links between places - i.e. translatlanic bandwidth costs more than bandwidth nationally because someone had to lay fiber trunking across an ocean. If you were to have a silly law stating that ISPs have to give the same QoS to all sites in the world then would it have to have the same amount of bandwidth available to every country in the world. Who will pay for this? Would you be happy to have your subscription quadrupled so that the satellite link to uzbekistan be upgraded? If it isn't then you could claim that your access to an uzbekistani phone service is being purposely sabotaged because your isp wants to encourage you to boost US economy by using local services.

As for whether it will have impact for the whole world or not, I can't see how. The only thing we rely on in other countries which is affected by the US is control of the root DNS servers, and I'm all for an international non profit body taking over that. There wouldn't need to be authorisation from the US for this to happen, just a consensus of DNS administrators in the rest of the world.

[herbwormwood]

Currently in the UK several ISP's have introduced packet shaping, a technique used to reduce download speeds of certain types of information on the internet (it can also prevent it entirely or set a limit to the amount you can download). This is done to reduce the load on the ISP's resources.

When ISP's do this, people either vote with their feet and find another ISP or they find a way to get around it.

So as long as we still have a choice of ISP's I think we're pretty safe.

please tell us which UK ISPS do this!!!
And if I am using a different ISP, is this going to affect me? Doesn't my download get routed via various servers? In which case its going to be affected, isn't it?
We are with a small ISP but we both noticed we could not get on Yahoo over the weekend.

[Mr Flibble]

Most of the large ones will at least proxy/cache all web traffic. NTL/Blueyonder have been doing this since at least 2001 when i first signed up with them. Take a look at this page (http://www.helpbytes.co.uk/tproxy.php) and see whether it says you are accessing via one or not. Since broadband came along the majority of ISPs also block incoming connections on various ports to stop you running web and various other servers on your machine.

[Risker]

They won't be blocking access to yahoo, there was probably just a fault somewhere.

[herbwormwood]

[QUOTE=Mr Flibble

OK I am not using a transparent proxy, but where does that leave my vulnerability to having sites blocked off under the new US network change? [/QUOTE]
Now and again I try to load a site and it just does not load.

[Jane M]

Companies such as AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South who are behind all this are hardly 'an international non profit body'.

[Mr Flibble]

Jane, sorry if my previous comments about DNS weren't clear enough. DNS has nothing to do with the bill this thread is about, but it is the only thing the US has control over which affects most internet users. As I say thou, that control could be swiped from the US without their consent - it's up to individual ISPs around the world to choose what root DNS servers they use.


Now and again I try to load a site and it jut does not load.

As Risker said it's extremely unlikely its anything other than a dodgy connection or a server offline.

[Jane M]

Still, if AT&T and the others gain the ability to control the flow of sites within the US wouldn't that hinder another country from accessing those sites? That is unless of course their company was somehow connected or paid fees for that use?

[Mr Flibble]

If i lived in the US and had a site that I wanted to be accessable internationally then I'd host it there. This thread is only about ISPs limitting connectivity between themselves and consumers - not about ISPs links between ISPs which cost $$$$$ to maintain. Some global ISPs have their own backbones between countries but most will buy all their bandwidth from transport companies like level3 (http://www.level3.com/)

[Jane M]

House rejects Net neutrality rules

"The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it.

By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others."
ZD Net (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081882.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn)

The link above also contains pdfs of the amendment as well as the COPE act.

[Sheila]

I cannot believe I had not heard of this.

That is really funny because I pay $49.95 to Time Warner each and every month for my Road Runner service. They should have no right to screw with my service at all. I cannot believe they think they should be able to.


Sheila