Privatization of the Internet

[Daimon]

The only thing worse than a Communist is a rabid capitalist: http://www.gcn.com/print/vol18_no36/894-1.html

[Mini]

Alert the Internet!

[Caligula]

it shouldnt be privitized. America inveted it and I want the US government running it. Not CEO Joe who will sell it to the Chinese for the right price.

[1300 Class]

To me, this is not important. One bunch of clowns taking over control from another bunch of clowns.

[Daimon]

To me, this is not important. One bunch of clowns taking over control from another bunch of clowns.

Hail to the Spectacle.

[1300 Class]

The ordinary user has nothing to worry about, nor ineed feer.

[EtobicokeFA]

And, what if the government that takes it over, tries to censure it? (Like China)

[HappyFatChick]

I thought Al Gore invented it?

[RedHead]

And, what if the government that takes it over, tries to censure it? (Like China)

I think this is already happening to a certain extent...look at the ability to track child pornography (which I think is a good thing) but if taken let's say in another direction....who visits sites related to republicans or democrats, or socialism, communism; even sexual orientation.

But like China; we too will find a way around the walls that they put into place.

[MissToodles]

I'm suprised more people haven't responded to such an important story. Free communication is the very essence of democracy. Along with privatizing water supplies, very scary things are going on in the world.

[Tina]

I've read several articles about this and I find it beyond worrisome. No one should 'own' the internet, and as adults, we need no guidance as to what we can and cannot look at. Neither this administration, nor any other, has the right to take control of it, IMO.

[BeaBea]

Ummm, how on earth would such a tax be enforceable? I'm a UK citizen and own several .com domains. I have legal title to them and they are hosted here in the UK so I cant quite see why I should pay a tax or how is could possibly be collected?

I think the governments of the world cant quite believe that democracy has escaped the box and that the control of information is now beyond their control. Tim Berners-Lee set us all free.

Thanks Tim, if you're reading :)

love Tracey

www.beabea.co.uk

[CleverBomb]

Taxing the internet is a bit of a red herring.
The bigger threat is the loss of Network Neutrality.
There is legislation pending that would allow ISPs to charge content providers for improved connection speeds. As it stands now, you pay for your connection and so do the content providers, and everything is delivered at the same speed (dependent on whatever type of connection is being sold). Changing this would allow the larger sites and companies that can afford to pay to have their sites carried at the highest speeds an unfair advantage, and give the ISPs the ability to extort fees from companies that rely on the Internet for either customer contact (sales, etc) or internal communications (FedEx or banks, for example)
This is in addition to getting out of "common carrier" status... as it stands now, your ISP isn't liable for stuff you send or view because they don't know what it is. If they can discriminate based on content (internet telephony, buying stuff at a particular online business, etc) then they are responsible for making sure the content is not illegal. Which puts them in a position to censor content (and obligates them to do so!)

Kind of rambling, but it's late and I'm tired.

-Rusty

[EtobicokeFA]

Taxing the internet is a bit of a red herring.
The bigger threat is the loss of Network Neutrality.
There is legislation pending that would allow ISPs to charge content providers for improved connection speeds. As it stands now, you pay for your connection and so do the content providers, and everything is delivered at the same speed (dependent on whatever type of connection is being sold). Changing this would allow the larger sites and companies that can afford to pay to have their sites carried at the highest speeds an unfair advantage, and give the ISPs the ability to extort fees from companies that rely on the Internet for either customer contact (sales, etc) or internal communications (FedEx or banks, for example)
This is in addition to getting out of "common carrier" status... as it stands now, your ISP isn't liable for stuff you send or view because they don't know what it is. If they can discriminate based on content (internet telephony, buying stuff at a particular online business, etc) then they are responsible for making sure the content is not illegal. Which puts them in a position to censor content (and obligates them to do so!)

Kind of rambling, but it's late and I'm tired.

-Rusty
I heard about a version of this called Web Tolls. To explain it, I going to use Dimensions as an example. Now if Conard wants to insure that everyone can access Dimensions, not only does he need to pay his ISP, but he has to pay a monthly fee to Comcast, for them to allow their customers to access Dimensions, but then he will have to pay another monthly fee to Verizon so the members using that service can access the site also and so on. On the bright side, in a unusually quick response the congress is drafting a bill to prevent it, let hope that it passes.