STOP SOPA

Let's keep a free and open Internet. Make your voice heard..

Learn more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more

*quality

STOP SOPA

Let's keep a free and open Internet. Make your voice heard..

Learn more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more

STOP SOPA

Let's keep a free and open Internet. Make your voice heard..

Learn more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more

STOP SOPA

Let's keep a free and open Internet. Make your voice heard..

Learn more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more

*Promote free media! Keep them monsters back! Sign the petition!

This is really appropriately titled. They are trying to convince Dummies that Net Neutrality is not important.

If the internet is not maintained at it's current (mostly) neutral state, you can say goodbye to Hulu, Skype, and YouTube. Why would the big corporate providers allow you to do stuff for free when they can charge you for their products? Say goodbye to innovation, say hello to the latest version of pay-per-view.

That is what net neutrality is about. The little guy having the ability to share their stuff for the cost of bandwidth.

This "don't regulate until there's a problem" argument is a joke. The cliff is in view. You want to put the brakes on now, or after we've gone over the cliff?

Check out a real video about net neutrality: http://www.videosift.com/video/Open-Internet-The-Argument-For-Net-Neutrality

>> ^dag:
Do you honestly think the iPad is going to kill Linux distros and an open Internet? I assume that's the kind of thing you are worried about.
I think you should point your worry stick at opponents of Net Neutrality- and vendors who want to "embrace and extend" open standards on the Internet.
It's not like we don't have "closed" applications systems already. Played an Xbox, Playstation or Wii lately?

I don't claim to know the future. I see risks. The trend to me seems to be towards more user-friendly computing, or rather, more transparent computing, where you don't have to actually think about using a complex device that much. That seems to be bringing with it increased manufacturer control over the way the devices can be used. If people get used to that - and they already have - then it seems to me there is a real risk of a more sinister erosion of rights: legislation governing what software can be installed on a device, combined with the ability to actually enforce such restrictions. Mandatory spyware. The China model, if you will. * Maybe none of that will come to pass, but the ease with which people get used to giving third parties control over their devices tells me the risk is there.

So my worry stick is forked many ways. Why pick one party to blame when you can point every which way? If you go far enough down the controlled-device road, eventually you'll be able to simply ban "free" devices for consumer use and few people will care. Many will welcome such a move. Net neutrality opponents are another facet of the slow erosion of the public's giving-a-fuck-about-net-freedom. The consoles you mention are one - and no, I haven't played on one lately - but they are, in my mind, less vile in their current form as they're more restricted devices to begin with - you don't do much else than play games with them. Still, I'm not a fan of those, either.

*(Ask yourself, out in the world, who's the model to follow now? Western countries, divided and economically ailing, or authoritarian China, with a booming economy and a rather stricter attitude towards its citizens? For a lot of the world, China's seems to be the more attractive way.)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Do you honestly think the iPad is going to kill Linux distros and an open Internet? I assume that's the kind of thing you are worried about.

I think you should point your worry stick at opponents of Net Neutrality- and vendors who want to "embrace and extend" open standards on the Internet.

It's not like we don't have "closed" applications systems already. Played an Xbox, Playstation or Wii lately?

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^yellowc People miss one key fact, not everything is for you, not every product is going to cater to your needs.


I'm fully aware of that. In fact, that is exactly why the newer offerings from Apple scare the shit out of me - they're poised to be extremely popular, and I'm in a niche that doesn't matter much. Most people won't give a damn that Apple has dictatorial control over what you can run on your device. I do. I worry about a future where information-processing devices are, essentially, owned by the company who made them, not the people who use them. Too much central control is never a good thing. I believe the Apple model is ultimately one of many factors eating away at freedom on the Internet - the ability to control what people can do with their devices is certain to be a statist lawmaker's dream. I also believe most people will never even think twice about that, all that matters is that the gear works well.
In 20 years time, we'll have the Internet we deserve.

>> ^gtjwkq:
Net Neutrality is people who don't understand how markets work trying to make unnecessary and cumbersome rules for what they think other people should do. Freedom seeking citizens would never advocate taking away the freedom of other citizens, whether or not they own big companies.
I've just come up with something awesome: Friend Neutrality. People are not allowed to chose who they are friends with anymore, otherwise they will discriminate with prejudice or be too picky. You have to be friends with everybody because every human being is entitled to friendship.
There, I've created a better world.


And people who claim that free markets are the bestest answer to every problem are people who don't understand what a free market entails. You -cannot- have a free market unless everyone involved has complete information about the goods being sold, and there has to be a relatively small barrier to entry into the market. This doesn't even begin to describe the ISP market.

Best of luck trying to find out what the high-usage caps are when you're looking for a new ISP. Virtually all ISP's have them...but none will give you an actual number that will get you shut down.

And for the second point, let's see how much it costs you to run your own set of wires if you care to compete... Those costs are the very arguments used by the phone and cable companies to get the huge government subsidies and monopolies in the first place. There is simply no effective competition in this market...so it simply cannot be free. Anyone who claims otherwise is pushing an ideological stance, not a realistic one.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'open, internet, net, neutrality, freedom, google, skype, application, agnostic' to 'open internet, net neutrality, freedom, google, skype, application agnostic' - edited by lucky760

>> ^fjules:
Oh common, everyone knows that nothing will happen to net neutrality. Why? Ok, let's pretend some companies switch over to "not neutral" internet. Guess what happens? One company remains "neutral" and EVERYONE switches to that company making the other ones go bankrupt. Not exactly rocket science, is it?


This is already happening in Canada. The biggest providers (rogers and bell), have both decided to implement traffic shaping and deep packing scanning in order to stop or severely hinder torrent transfers. They were allowed to do this without even disclosing anything, and in fact, rogers went so far as to not tell anyone they were doing this for years. The government has finally made it a requirement that the major service providers disclose their "traffic management practices" a little more clearly so that more of this stuff doesn't happen. While this doesn't do anything except force ISPs to admit they are doing it, at least it's a start, and these practices are being noticed.

CRTC on ISP traffic management

>> ^fjules:
Oh common, everyone knows that nothing will happen to net neutrality. Why? Ok, let's pretend some companies switch over to "not neutral" internet. Guess what happens? One company remains "neutral" and EVERYONE switches to that company making the other ones go bankrupt. Not exactly rocket science, is it?
PS: The architect at 1:40.


And since most areas only have -one- broadband provider, just who is it that going to remain neutral? Even here in Saint Louis, I only have two providers to choose from (AT&T and Charter)...and given their histories, I think it's pretty obvious that once one of them makes the move to double-dipping, the other will be only seconds behind.

Monopolies don't have to worry about competition...that's kind of implied in the definition.

Your video, Open Internet - The Argument For Net Neutrality, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^NetRunner:
Give it a little time, the big companies and lobbyists will have people saying they're for freedom too, and that Net Neutrality is a secret plot to kill your grandmother.

I've already read someone saying "Net neutrality is what they have in China and North Korea, you know". So yeah, it's getting there.

I wouldn't call that non-biased, or even completely factually correct. Some are accurate, others are not. Obama does not support invading Iran, and for some reason they didn't mention FISA. Oh, that's right, that's because Ron Paul did not oppose FISA.

As for the bit about health care plans, Obama's health care plan seems to say something more than "I believe in change".

Paul's plan is to deregulate the market, and cut people's taxes. That's essentially McCain's health care plan!

As for the comment about the internet, Paul opposes net neutrality, while Obama supports it.

I guess the question there is whether you think freedom means big networks should be able to use their money to monopolize the flow of information through the internet...or keep it how it is now.