United Bimmer Community - BMW Forum

United Bimmer Community - BMW Forum (http://www.unitedbimmer.com/forums/)
-   United Off Topic  **FOR MEMBERS ONLY** (http://www.unitedbimmer.com/forums/united-off-topic-members-only/)
-   -   Net Nuetrality this is important to all (http://www.unitedbimmer.com/forums/united-off-topic-members-only/7404-net-nuetrality-important-all.html)

Chris 04-25-2006 05:19 AM

on thursday morning will you still be able to visit ub.c?
 
here's the simple version in an easy to understand video format

http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW...rch=neutrality

here's a basic rundown in text:

Net neutrality is the ability for us to come to ub.c and not to another forum b/c out ISP decided to sign a contract with "another forum". sure. simple right? now take that to a broad scale like your ISP saying that you're not allwed to go to google.com because tey signed a contract with yahoo. or you can't use vonage because they signed a deal with someone else. they also say that you aren't allowed to use norton anymore you have to use their half baked version. you are also now limited in searches by what they deem appropriate. what if you were only allowed to use the s that your isp signed a contract with because their software isn't compatible with any others?what if there was nothing you could do about it because like the railroads in monopoly all the big ISPs decided to split the market up equally by region and you had no say about it because they make billions of dollars a year?


sounds liks a crock of shit huh? well its not. there's actually a vte on this on wednessday about these very issues. i the bill is passed yu could no longer be allowed

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Network neutrality is a principle of network design. It asserts that, in order to promote innovation, network service providers such as telephone and cable internet companies should not be permitted to dictate how those networks are used (i.e., not permitted to ban certain types of programs, to ban certain types of devices connecting to the network, or to favor carriage of traffic to certain web sites over others). Susan Crawford distinguishes substrate neutrality by which she means only the physical pipes which the Cable cos and Telcos say they own free and clear and over which logically as First Amendment speakers like in Miami Herald v. Tournillo government has no right to regulate as to content absent a compelling state interest that can pass the strict scrutiny of judicial review.

It is closely related to the end to end principle. Under this principle, a dumb network merely connects devices, and is insensitive to the needs of applications running on those devices. Contrast this with an intelligent network.

Underlying the theory of the benefits of network neutrality is a belief that a neutral network promotes Schumpterian, or evolutionary innovation of information technology.

Network neutrality arguments have antecedents in other concepts in communications law, such as common carrier regulation and the "Computer Inquiries" approach. The contemporary use of the phrase "network neutrality" began in the early 2000s, though its exact origins are unknown. Some groups prefer the term "bit discrimination."

Some of the arguments associated with network neutrality came into prominence in mid 2002, pushed by the "High Tech Broadband Coalition", a group comprising developers for Amazon.com, Google, and Microsoft. However, the fuller concept of "Network neutrality" was developed mainly by legal academics, most prominently law professors Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell, the first government official to endorse Network Neutrality. It is worth noting, however, that the ideas underlying Network Neutrality have a long pedigree in telecommunications regulation.

Proposals for network neutrality laws are generally opposed by the cable television and telephone industries and some conservative and libertarian scholars including Christopher Yoo and Adam Thierer. Opponents argue that (1) network neutrality "principles" are likely to become the basis for more intrusive regulation of the internet, and (2) imposing such regulation will chill investment in competitive networks (e.g., wireless broadband) and deny network providers the ability to differentiate their services.

read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality


here's more information:

http://www.savetheinternet.com

:jawdrop :jawdrop :jawdrop :jawdrop

witeshark 04-25-2006 10:24 AM

I sent a message. nice FYI Chris

craig 04-25-2006 10:30 AM

hmm.. that was interesting. thanks for the info.

RealBmw 02 04-25-2006 12:10 PM

so who gets to vote? I didn't read the whole article, maybe it said somewhere.

Chris 04-26-2006 06:08 AM

US congress will vote today on a lesser form of this bill which will pretty much indicate what the result of the vote for this bill will be.

Storamin 04-26-2006 09:00 AM

oh noez the internet will die.

jms 04-26-2006 11:52 AM

they are messing in things they don't understand. They need to stay out.

Chris 04-26-2006 03:53 PM

^^^ damn right.

DEATH2000 04-27-2006 04:14 PM

This better not affect Canada.....

Storamin 04-27-2006 05:34 PM

canada... what's that?

jms 04-28-2006 08:25 AM

any large shift in the us will affect cananda but to a lesser degree. Personally I believe the govt. should stay out. As far as corporations signing deals for specific content etc... I don't have a problem with it as long as they inform customers. AOL's whole business model in the 90's was get people while they are new and give them the content in a way that makes them dependand in the future. So AOL was serving up its own content from its own servers and passing it off as the internet. The AOL client base was kept ignorant of how to ween itself off so when you couldn't get AOL access they created BYOA (bring your own access). So you pay for an internet connection and then you pay for aol on top of it. That is just stupid.

But what if you got your connection for much much less, or even free, because it was subsidized by a corporation which wanted you to use their service instead of another company. If it's ok with you then take the less expensive service. If it is not then don't, demand unfiltered pure service. It really is that simple. people cast their votes one dollar at a time. If nobody wants the other brand, the other brand goes away.

Essentially just leave the government out of it and


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2005-2013 UnitedBimmer.com
Ad Management by RedTyger


Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 2.4.0 © 2005, Crawlability, Inc.