kartiksh
msg:362318 | 12:13 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0) |
A small setback to upcoming plans for G and all VOIP companies. Good news for wireless carriers though.
|
Atticus
msg:362319 | 3:51 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0) |
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
|
Hobbs
msg:362320 | 11:17 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0) |
This will spread worlwide like a bird flue, thank you USA.
|
digitalghost
msg:362321 | 11:21 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>>thank you USA Quite welcome. But, this isn't law yet. Quite a bit of process to go before it gets inked into law. Anyone care for a Conjunction Junction Link? Birds with chimneys? Anyone?
|
Hobbs
msg:362322 | 11:34 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0) |
digitalghost,
was too angry to read the full article, ok for now, but will come back and rant my fingers out when it passes as law!
|
digitalghost
msg:362323 | 11:36 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Me and you both. ;)
|
kaled
msg:362324 | 11:51 pm on Jun 29, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Just a thought... Suppose a carrier slowed down the transmission data from a site. Could that be a breach of any laws related to restraint of trade? Suppose the carrier offered to restore data transmission to full speed for a fee. Could that be seen as blackmail and/or racketeering or something along those lines? Kaled.
|
WolfLover
msg:362325 | 12:16 am on Jun 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Hello all. I am not really up on this Net Neutrality, though I need to learn about it. How will it affect the small business person? Is this just another way for the phone companies to screw us? Where is the best place to go to learn more about this and is there anything we can do? Will writing our senators and congressmen do anything? I found one website today and signed the petition that was to be sent directly to our local congressmen and senators, however, I am never sure if that gets anywhere. This sounds to me like the usual rich get richer thing while the little guy gets to pay for it all in the end.
|
claus
msg:362326 | 12:37 am on Jun 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>> How will it affect the small business person? As far as I can tell this has no influence on the ordainary mom 'n pop business. I am willing to take a bet that 90%-99% of webmasters here will be unaffected. Some of the big guys with lots of marketing muscle would like to have it look that way. It's just hype to protect their own interest. This will mean increased costs for the big guys, like Google, Yahoo, MSN, but probably also for smaller bandwith hogs like YouTube, internet radio, Skype, etc. >> Is this just another way for the phone companies to screw us? Of course this opens all kinds of theoretical possibilities. And telcos are greedy by nature. But then no more than most companies are. But I wouldn't believe the hype myself. Telco's have learned the AOL lesson; no customers today would want a walled garden for common web content. Multimedia-content is something else (sofar, but that may change) So, this is not for regulating traffic to your standard HTML pages. Not even if they feature a shopping cart, or ads.
Added: Previous discussions:
|
ember
msg:362327 | 2:06 am on Jun 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Has anyone in the States noticed that Congress no longer represents the people but instead represents corporate America? We're losing our democracy and no one seems to care.
|
digitalghost
msg:362328 | 2:11 am on Jun 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Heard of call-back? Read about California? We have control, if we care enough to use it. But politics aren't welcome in the thread. We can discuss the impact of political decisions, but for the benefit of the board, the politcal discussions need to happen elswhere.
|
Atticus
msg:362329 | 3:18 am on Jun 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
[savetheinternet.com...] Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.
|
gmiller
msg:362330 | 8:24 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Suppose a carrier slowed down the transmission data from a site. Could that be a breach of any laws related to restraint of trade? Suppose the carrier offered to restore data transmission to full speed for a fee. Could that be seen as blackmail and/or racketeering or something along those lines?
|
|
No, it'd be seen as freedom of speech, in much the same way that Google can rank one site above its competitor, using any reasonable or unreasonable ranking algorithm Google chooses. The greedy, self-interested side of me likes the idea of "Net Neutrality", but the freedom-loving side finds it alarming.
|
Atticus
msg:362331 | 4:09 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
AT&T was given monopoly powers by the government early in the 20th century. Because of this, they were required to provide equal service to all via common carrier laws. There is no freedom in letting a monopoly (which exists due to the goverment's squelching of competition) disavow its commitment to common carrier rules simply because telephone lines are now used for Internet traffic in addition to telephone calls. If you truly want freedom in this area, get in a time machine, go back to 1917 and stop AT&T from gaining the monoploy status which they now want to use to overchange and/or silence their customers and their competition.
|
|
