As per my own previous post, that title would be "It's the end of the internet as we know it?"

I don't know how many of you already know, and quite frankly I doubt most of you understand enough to care, but in the coming days, the face of the world wide web as we know it may change forever. Sure, the change won't be immediate, but it will happen at this rate.

Up until now, every ISP has been required by law to provide equal and unbiased bandwidth for all people and all parts of the internet. A recent bill has determined that high-speed internet does not fall under that law. That means that your highspeed internet provider will be free to create a tiered system of internet, whereby those who can afford it can access the highest-bandwidth lines, and those who can't get stuck with yesterday's technology.

This isn't just on the consumer end either; it's not like paying more for more bandwidth. This is on the company end. That means that, if you have Comcast internet for example, the data of the Comcast website could be streamed to you over the newest fiberoptic lines at amazing speeds. And, any company who wishes to PAY Comcast can enjoy those same priviliges. Now, Psypoke, for example, can't really afford to pay for that, so we'd get shoved back to the old lines. The old, worn-out, overcrowded lines.

This issue is not about companies or consumers, it's about the world's right to a free, unbiased, unhindered internet. It may be years before the effects of this bill are actually noticed on the part of the comsumer, but the footings are being laid now. Ed Whitacre, the CEO of AT&T has been cited attacking Google and other Web sites for

I searched Congress bill records and couldn't find anything of the like. Where did you learn of this? Are you sure this scare isn't just the works of special interest groups? Not that I wouldn't personally trust you, but I would question the credibilty of your sources. This seems a little far out. Even so, there are a lot of bills that congress ignores, don't pass, or get vetoed. I don't know the probability of this passing, but I assume the odds are rather low. I wouldn't worry about it.

See here and here and here and here and here and here for more info since someone's actually interested.

It should be noted, as I said before, that a change would not be immediate, but that this is a major step in the wrong direction with an ultimate outcome as described above.. unless Google saves us all.

go google, go google!

I'm not very knowledgable on the subject, so I'm going to ask some (probably) stupid questions:

How is information displayed on the internet? Like private persons, do companies pay money to another company to host their information? If not, how do we access what big companies provide to view? If so, what companies, and how do they host and transmit that information? How do the hosts of private persons store and display the information?

OK, internet 101. You are the end user. The internet is hosted on servers all over the globe. In order to get information from those servers to you, it has to be sent through all sorts of wires and cables and satellites and everything else. The servers are owned by a hosting company. The CONTENT of the servers is owned by all the companies that made those pages, but they don't always own the servers. The lines that transmit the data to you from the servers are owned by the company that laid the lines, generally your tellecommunications company, such as Bell, SBC, AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Comcast, etc.

This is where the problem arrises. Up until now, all that data simply has to be transmitted. This new legislation however says that the owners of the lines can actively filter out the data. This means that, should they choose to, Comcast could not allow Psypoke to transmit data over their lines. Thus, all Comcast customers would be unable to access this site.

Bringing in the quote above from the CEO, you'll see that some of these companies already accuse websites of using "thier lines" for free. They did lay the lines, so technically they are theres. Up until now, they have been nothing more than a conduit. Now, they can be a smart conduit, deciding what information to carry.

The fastest lines will go to the highest bidders, the slower lines to those who pay less. And some people might not get to use any lines at all.

This is why the US allowing broadband companies to act outside of Net Neutrality is a very real problem for the coming age of the internet.

Telecommunication companies aren't going to charge or block the use of certain websites. Google and Yahoo are using scare tactics, because they believe they're going to lose money. We won't lose access to small time websites like Psypoke, so there's no reason to fear that. It's just a bunch of manipulation. I couldn't find any acticle to support that CEO's would make the decision to charge websites for better access. They don't have the right to do so, but as the company who pay to allow us to see this information (just like television networks), they reserve the right to monitor and chose what's displayed. They have the right to monitor the amount of bandwidth that is sent and received from anywhere. Blocking the use of websites will lose customers. Unlike television networks or radio stations, the World Wide Web has information that can appeal to any demographic, and this information can be viewed using any company. It would make no sense for anyone who is aimed at profit to block a website or service that would lose loyal consumers. ISP's accepting kickbacks from all websites to gain faster traffic or suffer slower access from end users would be a form of extortion. It won't happen.

Expect bandwidth received more slowly from larger websites, that's all.

Houstin, we (may) have a problem. Lets just hope it's not as bad as we're thinking it is.