Uh-Oh!

This is serious stuff, which could spell the end of the Internet as we know it. Depending on the fee structures, the availability of a budget to pay for preferred access could become more important than content quality.

This will not go down well in modern Internet culture. I don't think that the US DOJ has ANY IDEA what they are walking into.

This is gravely frightening.

Their post office analogy breaks down. True, both charge the person "sending" the package (ignoring the small amount of uploading that takes place during a typical webpage view). But in the post office, the person sending the package is the customer. With the net, the person receiving the package is the customer. A tiered access structure like they net companies are proposing would take control away from the customer. We already have the equivalent of priority mail and express mail on the internet – it's called DSL and Cable.

elyk: Couldn't have said it better myself. I wonder which company paid off the DoJ to make this statement? (I don't really think that, or at least I better hope it isn't true, but the ISPs sure couldn't have asked for better support.)

The post office analogy breaks down also because it's about a speed of the delivery. We already have different fees for different speeds of the Internet access.

The net neutrality is about not charging special rates depending on whose internet content you are trying to access.

And indeed – you don't usually see at the Post Office dialogs like the following:

Customer: I would like to get the package, that is waiting from me.
Clerk: Certainly. It's from Agnes Sweethoney. Who is this person for you?
Customer: She's my aunt. Why?
Clerk: Let my get the price list. Ok... astronaut... no... anal sex toys maker... no... arsonist... no... Oh! Here it is! Aunt! It's $4.95.
Customer: But she already payed for this package...
Clerk: So what?

[Incomplete posts merged – Tony]

This only applies to the US, right? That's why I'm happy to have left that worthless country. It's a free country, yes, but hey, you get what you pay for!

I think mobile phones might be a better analogy. Once you pick your monthly package (or pay-as-you-go) you can call anyone you want on any network or landline or country. But you can also pay a bit more and get additional features or access.

I don't mind if the ISPs offer, for example, packages with unlimited downloads from affiliates. But like mobile phones, once I've paid my monthly fee I expect to able to go anywhere without anyone checking to see where I'm going and deciding whether they like it or not!!!

Don't think that merely living outside the US means this won't affect you. Aside from copycat legislation in other nations that could result, the simple fact that a lot of media is on US servers means this would be bad for all internet users.

So unless one ISP decides not to go for the two-tier approach (which'd be smart, they'd rake in the money from dissatisfied customers from other companies) the only choice is to store the data in an unaffected country.

That's the thing though, Satan....... how free is free and when does it stop qualifying as 'free'. This place is not so free. It's loaded with sublime control mechanisms, shrouded in a capitalist cloak. Its perpretrators are beyond greedy and ultimately no less communist than the outspoken communists they criticize. The proverbial wool over the eyes. Just who can continue to live any reasonable life if you have to pay for every single thing there is.
It's like water: how do the cable and phone companies who are promoting these discriminatory way of doing business explain their right to something that was there before them. How is that any better than essentially selling the dirty tap water running through our homes?
The next questionis why do people have to pay so the DoJ can snoop more into your business than before. God knows what people will be accused of. HEED it all!!! Speech is not so free, people. This has serious political and social implications and Americans need to really be careful of what they say yes to, while they continue to live like it's just some people talking.

There'll be even less saving, more offshore accounts and investments, longer bank lines, etc.. Believe me, it goes way beyond just paid internet access and AT&T and company should never have the benefit of anyone's hard earned money.

"...service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers."

Not to mention using the postal service in an analogy that you refer to satisfied customers and efficiency.. when is the last time this guy went to the post office? Waiting in line for 10-30 minutes to pay $30 to ship a package that is kinda guaranteed to get there on time unless they don't feel like getting it there on time. And then if it doesn't and you try and get your money back that's another 10-30 minutes out of your life.

bureaucracy = efficient? show me one.

Welcome to the internet as cable TV folks!

Wherein the "basic" internet includes great access to "partner" sites and services you DON'T get to choose and substantially reduced access tot he greater internet.

Or you can "upgrade" to "enhanced" access giving you more partner sites and services you DON'T get to choose and marginally improved speeds for the rest.

Finally you can upgrade to "premium" access where you get to choose from bundles of sites and services (that we helpfully assembled for you) at top speed and reasonable access to the rest. Maybe.

This is of course, assuming you're not running any services or accessing sites we don't like. I mean, don't choose your own VoIP service when we provide one. And we don't like p2p. And the government wishes us to "degrade" access to certain sites they object to. And we don't feel the need to publish the bandwidth you're paying for, as that's irrelevant now.

Cheers.

Lee: ... what?

Did anyone else read Lee's post? Or, rather, did anyone actually understand it?

I agree that the post office analogy is very frightening. But I think they've also recommended that "special rates" be charged only for "heavy data usage" in other words downloading movies etc.

Lee, how would being greedy be communist again? And who's paying the DoJ to "snoop" around. If you didn't know a Federal Judge struck down many of the Patriot Act's provisions!

Well unless Google cooperates, I do not see how they will be able to control the order in which sites are seen. In order to accomplish that amount of control, the ISPs would have to restrict access to search engines, and their customers certainly will not pay for that sort of thing.

Net Neutrality has never been about making the possible new technologies more accessible to everyone. It has always been about large power-chugging companies like Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, and Time-Warner seeking to get consumers to pay directly for the development of infrastructure that only those large power-chugging companies would need.

People who have supported Net Neutrality have consistently misunderstood exactly what the stakes are for all of us except the large companeis: higher fees with no immediate benefit.

If Net Neutrality fails, you can be sure the large companies will give serious consideration to asking Congress to fund the proposed new infrastructure – thus making the American taxpayer foot the bill.

Either way, none of you should be supporting Net Neutrality. You stand to gain nothing from it.

Let the infrastructure be built, but let the large cash-rich companies like Microsoft, Google, Time-Warner, and Yahoo! pay for it directly (just as they pay for their data centers to be built) and then let them pass on the costs to consumers of their services.

<<Well unless Google cooperates, I do not see how they will be able to control the order in which sites are seen. In order to accomplish that amount of control, the ISPs would have to restrict access to search engines, and their customers certainly will not pay for that sort of thing.>>

Do you even know what Net Neutrality is?

Basically, what might happen now is that ATT might charge, say Microsoft money to load Live.com or whatever *faster* than Yahoo and Google.

Now the DoJ's ruling allows companies to charge *more* for "high bandwidth activities" such as downloading movies

What is even more concerning to me is that congress probably have no idea what will happen when they start tampering with Net Neutrality. A lack of knowledge and understanding can cause a major problem. Besides, how exactly do they wish to keep this in the US only? What they are suggesting is a technical nightmare and will most definitely effect the rest of the world.

I made a post for Net Neutrality on my blog because of this-- http://pinstack.blogspot.com/2007/09/save-internet.html