STORM2K

Just stumbled across this late tonight by happen stance. This is an outrage. I can't believe it.

Hopefully lawmakers would never let this happen. Please write to your newspapers, congress people, state legislators, senators, etc., and tell them that this won't be allowed to happen.

I hope this is some type of joke but I doubt it.

http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality2

Update: Bell Canada and TELUS (formerly owned by Verizon) employees officially confirm that by 2012 ISP's all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit. These 'other' sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet.

Dylan Pattyn *, who is currently writing an article for Time Magazine on the issue, has official confirmation from sources within Bell Canada and is interviewing a marketing representative from TELUS who confirms the story and states that TELUS has already started blocking all websites that aren't in the subscription package for mobile Internet access. They could not confirm whether it would happen in 2012 because both stated it may actually happen sooner (as early as 2010). Interviews with these sources, more confirmation from other sources and more in-depth information on the issue is set to be published in Time Magazine soon.
What can we do?

Oh no... what about the stuff?!

(I'm laughing at the video ... 4:11 into the video)

Telus? I found a PDF on them including all names, addresses and phone numbers of the people running it. No wonder, as far as I recall before my hard drive failed completely, it looked like they were almost bankrupt. My hard drive also had a lot of stuff on it.

I hope it doesn't happen. The beauty of internet is that you can move around in a flash and find out anything you want. If this is restricted, then the internet becomes almost pointless.

A worldwide net neutrality conspiracy theory runs into trouble
8:40 AM, June 11, 2008

The flamboyant online activist group from Belgium, I Power, has been drawing a lot of attention for its recent video (above) proclaiming a worldwide conspiracy that would end the Internet as we know it.

The video, "2012: The Year the Internet Ends," has been watched nearly 1.5 million times since it was posted on YouTube June 1. In it, the group says over ominous music that it has high-level sources at significant Internet service providers around the globe who have revealed that they are jointly planning to unveil a new subscription-based pricing model in 2012. Under the plan, the group says, ISP users would get access to a few basic websites and be forced to pay extra to go anywhere else on the Internet.

I Power is using the plan to advocate for network neutrality -- rules to prevent Internet providers from discriminating against individual websites.

But there's a major problem with I Power's theory. If you're going to have a worldwide conspiracy, then it would seem vital to include the world's wealthiest country. And in the United States, the plan I Power is talking about would violate federal rules.

When it comes to how ISPs run their networks, "there are evil things happening," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for advocacy group and net neutrality supporter Public Knowledge. "This just isn't one of them."

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission issued a policy statement (PDF download) containing four principles for Internet access. The first one states that "consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice."

In simpler terms, it means ...

... that ISPs can't block you from visiting any legal site. The exceptions are for blocking illegal content, such as three ISPs just agreed to do for child pornography.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean ISPs can't slow access to certain sites. And that's where the current debate over net neutrality has been raging in Washington (the White House opposes such restrictions).

Some lawmakers, public interest groups and Internet companies, including Google, want the FCC or Congress to add a fifth principle preventing discrimination against specific websites. They fear that Internet service providers will try to force websites to pay for faster delivery to customers. The sites that don't would get stuck in the slow lane of the Internet superhighway.

"The four principles address blocking pretty clearly," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, another public interest group pushing for net neutrality rules. "But they don’t necessarily address degradation or discrimination."

That's evident in the dispute going on now with Comcast, which is accused of blocking access by some customers to the BitTorrent file-sharing program. The FCC is investigating. But it's interesting to note Comcast's defense so far. The company denies it was blocking access to BitTorrent (because that's clearly not allowed under the FCC's rules). Instead, Comcast said, it was only slowing the access.

Reese Leysen, a spokesman for I Power, told me that he wasn't aware of the FCC rules and that his group wasn't sure exactly how the ISPs planned to pull off the alleged new subscription-based model.

"We don’t know the specifics ourselves yet, but we’re definitely working to find it out," he said. "Let’s hope the FCC would stop that sort of thing in the U.S."

The video quickly shot up the rankings on Digg, but also sparked a lot of comments critical of the plot and the unnamed sourcing. Based on those responses, Digg now warns that the video may be inaccurate.

Net neutrality advocates in Washington, who are extremely fearful of what the cable and phone companies may be planning, still expressed doubts about I Power's allegations. "Do they also think that Fidel Castro killed John Kennedy?" Brodsky wondered.

I Power posted a new video Sunday saying it had confirmation of the 2012 plan from sources inside two Canadian telecommunications companies, Bell Canada and Telus. But those claims are somewhat flimsy. I Power links to a Telus Web page listing dozens of websites that users can only access on a "pay-per-use" basis. But following the link backward to Telus' wireless web offerings, you find that the company has two Web packages -- one with unlimited web surfing and one where you pay 5 cents every time you visit any site. And obviously, Canada is not part of the United States.

I Power is known for outrageous activities. Earlier this year, the group drew more attention when one of its members, Tania Derveaux, posted a nearly naked picture of herself and offered to "make love with every virgin who defends the Internet" by supporting Net Neutrality.

But Leysen said the Internet conspiracy video was not a stunt.

"Sometimes we do stunts to get people’s attention. But when we do a stunt ... it always has a humorous part," he said. "In this case, we’re not doing that at all."

We may have to wait until 2012 to find out for sure.

-- Jim Puzzanghera

Puzzanghera, a Times staff writer, covers tech and media policy from Washington

If any whiff comes up, you can be certain it will be a key election issue in democracies the world over. And no one smart will vote in anyone who wants to censor the Internet for commercial gain.

You can't believe everything you see on the internet.

There is talk of "metering" internet access by some ISP's, but that's not the end of the world. Many communication sservices are metered, and there's not reason the internet can't be. Even if most ISP's go the metering route, there will be some that offer unlimited access plans. Infrastructure costs money, and ISP's have to recover that money like all other service providers do.

HURAKAN wrote:A worldwide net neutrality conspiracy theory runs into trouble
8:40 AM, June 11, 2008

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission issued a policy statement (PDF download) containing four principles for Internet access. The first one states that "consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice."

In simpler terms, it means ...

... that ISPs can't block you from visiting any legal site. The exceptions are for blocking illegal content, such as three ISPs just agreed to do for child pornography.

It's not about blocking websites, it's about them charging money or slowing them down. If they do that, the smaller websites will die off and then only the highest up ones survive which is something we need to prevent from ever happening. I'm concerned over this issue and I'm against Internet 2.

... that ISPs can't block you from visiting any legal site. The exceptions are for blocking illegal content, such as three ISPs just agreed to do for child pornography.

. . there are ways around ISPs blocking websites . . . just ask those whose governments regularly block websites at the ISP level, such as the Chinese and the Iranians . . .

And just throw some more flame on the bonfire of metering of the Internet. . . notice the companies that want "metering" -- Comcast, Cox, AT&T and Time-Warner --- Cable companies . .except for AT&T (but I've heard rumors about offering cable tv over telephone lines . . or something along those lines) . .

It's no coincidence. Those companies are also the largest ISP's in the nation.