I guess then the U.S. government should take back that 7 billion dollars they have recently given out for broadband expansion. And the rest of the billions over the years as well. Since without government intervention over the years, the Internet would only be bulletin boards and dialup.
And G.W. Bush tore up the constitution way back when, so why did republican voters not call him a dictator/fascist. With blatant non-regulation and major tax nullifications for massive corporations and watch the economy fail and take it's neighbors with it.
ISP's want to charge Google for traffic the user requests(YouTube especially), so the ISP can get paid twice for the same data stream.Lets also add that some ISP's in the U.S. are getting special Internet content deals with sports networks. So only the users on a certain ISP can see that Internet show. The answer if you can't see it? Switch ISP's. What a crock.
Canada as a general taste of what happens without neutrality Laws...
* ISP's can use deep packet inspection to then bombard the users with advert's on their screens and hack whitespaces of webpages to insert ad's paid to the ISP for what the user is surfing for..... Thats Rogers Internet in Canada. Hughesnet in the States also has this ability of popping up notices on the users screen.
* An ISP can block all file sharing sites like rapidshare.... Xplornet is already doing that with undocumented heavy throttling. Since blocking the sites completely would be a crime. Support blames the user for the slowness.
* An ISP can block a website. Well until they get caught at it.
* ISP's that have other carriers on their lines, can violate privacy laws and use deep packet inspection and throttle those companies users.... Thats Bell.
* The Canadian equivalent of U.S. websites can continue to block U.S. sites version via redirection. The videos that Canadians are not allowed to see on the U.S. sites eventually get blocked and the webpage becomes open to see all the other content on the pages. It's real fun for people having to use other means to contact a website that you are not allowed to access. DIY network just came to Canada. And we lost access to the U.S. video's on the U.S. site. Meanwhile we get stuck with a few crappy Canadian videos from Peter Fellatio.
* Webpages that are of Canadian content keep having the RCMP(federal police) user agent and IP showing up in their visitor logs. Just in case someone might commit an actual hate crime(telling a lie about someone to cause lots of crazies to then attack that someone) or keep dissing the cops too much, by telling the truth.
* The Canadian police forces want our ISP's to keep two years rolling data of our Internet traffic. And that includes VOIP and emails. Just in case we might want to commit a crime at some point. And that violates our Freedom of Innocence.
* The copyright mafia would like to make spyware legal in Canada, so they can put rootkits in all music and movie and game copies and not be jailed for it. Even though suits don't go to jail anyways. They pay the tiny fine and continue on.
* The CRTC regulator of data transmissions in Canada is a self regulating body. Meaning that it is full of former Rogers and Bell executives. So the consumer automatically loses. And they keep saying they don't regulate the Internet here, yet they do not allow any 'major' complaints against carriers for violating the data rules that already exist. There are rules, but they just need to add "Internet" to the paperwork for complete regulation and enforcing our existing rights. But they can't seem to fathom how the Internet is the same as a phone or TV or snail mail to make the wording addition.
A recent addition is the telecommunications complaint site. http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/en/
How many people know that ISP's mine the users Internet traffic to sell to a third party? 'Opting out' should be a crime. Having to 'opt in' should be the law. Then everyone knows what is happening with their data. Bush's illegal wiretapping as a major example. And the ISP's went along with it, without legal question of an illegal act.
Nobody Apparently Likes Congress's New Privacy Bill
Debating privacy in the age of deep packet inspection
May 05 2010
You might recall how efforts by companies like NebuAD to impose behavioral advertising upon users fell apart -- in part because many ISPs weren't informing users they were collecting information using deep packet inspection (just like they don't inform users they sell clickstream data) http://en.wikipedia....iki/Clickstream . But there's also questions surrounding whether such systems violate privacy and wiretap laws.
With the goal of opening the flood gates to this new, more profitable advertising -- while codifying consumer protections -- Congress has proposed a new, as-yet not-fully-named privacy bill (pdf) http://www.boucher.h..._Draft_5-10.pdf
Bill sponsor Rick Boucher insists the bill strikes a middle ground between privacy concerns (specifically the need to inform consumers how and why data is being collected) and the need to open the door to these new targeted advertising models. Among other things, the bill would set limits on how long user data could be stored (18 months) and would require that companies notify customers precisely what information is being collected about them (online and off).
So far, neither consumer advocates or corporations seem happy with the bill. Privacy groups complained that the bill simply keeps current broken practices in place, like requiring companies to bury user notification in fine print, and putting the onus on the consumer to "opt-out" -- instead of requiring things like behavioral advertising be opt-in. They also are concerned that the bill would bar consumers from suing companies for data collection gaffes, and would also pre-empt a number of tougher state privacy laws.
The long list of corporations eager to profit from technology like behavioral advertising have always insisted they can self-regulate their use of consumer data -- and that new laws aren't necessary. Verizon, for instance, has consistently argued that public shame would keep them honest about privacy concerns. Of course, if an ISP is collecting user data and selling it without a user's knowledge (the sale of clickstream data is exhibit A), and is implementing deep packet inspection technology they aren't willing to talk about (see Windstream's recent DPI snafu as exhibit B http://www.dslreport...shownews/107828 ) it's not clear at what point they'd be informed long enough to shame anybody.
Boucher's bill is pretty clearly not the answer, and like much legislation -- it has the potential to be so watered down by lobbyists before it's finalized, it could easily work to harm -- not help -- consumer privacy.
Edited by zalternate, 14 May 2010 - 07:01 PM.