The final Signoff of the web is comming

[urbanexplorer]

i read this on MSN homepage today its kinda of lenghty  but worth the read because it will affect us all 

By Michael Rogers
Columnist
Special to MSNBC
Updated: 11:21 a.m. ET July 11, 2006

The most potent force shaping the future of the Internet is neither Mountain View's Googleplex nor the Microsoft campus in Redmond.  It's rather a small army of Gucci-shod lobbyists on Washington's K Street and the powerful legislators whose favor they curry.
After years of benign neglect, the Federal government is finally involved in the Internet — big time. And the decisions being made over the next few months will impact not just the future of the Web, but that of mass media and consumer electronics as well. Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace.



All of the major changes are encompassed in a single, sprawling bill that is called a "rewrite" of the 1996 Telecommunications Act but which in fact breaks all manner of new ground. At present the bill is out of committee in both houses but it's not clear whether it will actually be passed this year; three weeks remain until summer recess and in September members may be more focused on elections than electrons. But sooner or later, Congress is going to lay down the law, and here's a quick primer on some of the key issues: 
Network neutrality: This argument has received by far the most publicity. It pits network owners such as Verizon and AT&T against the companies who buy their bandwidth, such as Google and Amazon, and it hinges on whether the network owners can charge extra to deliver certain kinds of bits — bill more for streaming video, for example, than simpler data like text e-mail.
Enormous lobbying forces on both sides have created a highly emotional battle, involving everyone from Moby to the Christian Coalition. One side argues that access providers will use pricing to lock out competitors or even censor certain Web sites. The other side contends that Federal pricing regulation would permanently cripple the development of the Internet because network owners won't be able to charge enough to upgrade their infrastructure.
  RELATED CONTENT
Do you think the government should regulate the Internet?
In the end, it's really an argument about who will bear the costs of building out the robust networks that we'll all use in the future. And while net neutrality has received the most press, in the end it may not change the status quo as much as either side fears or hopes. If the networks win, the government will probably intervene if it sees unfair discrimination against competitors or censorship. If the Googles of the world win, the network owners will undoubtedly figure out some other way to raise prices.
No matter which way it goes, it means a new element of government regulation. And as far as who pays to build out the networks — in the end, one way or another, most of the costs will still be passed on to the consumer.
National video franchise: Wait... weren't we talking about the Internet? This is about the Internet. Telephone companies have figured out that they're dead in the water competitively in the Internet bandwidth game unless they replace their existing copper lines with fiber optic cables, thereby leapfrogging the capabilities of the cable companies.
But retrofitting America for fiber is going to be phenomenally expensive and it will be hard to recoup those costs selling Internet access. So the telcos want to provide television, just like the cable companies. 
Problem: as the law currently stands, the telcos have to go to every community individually and ask for a franchise to deliver television, which is what the cable companies had to do years ago. That process could be both lengthy and expensive, so the telcos want a national television franchise that will let them go into many communities all at once. After much opposition by the cable and satellite folks, who don't want any more competition, it looks like the telcos will get what they want.
If so, then fiber optic cables to the home are going to happen far more quickly than anyone would have predicted five years ago — a major upgrade to the U.S. information infrastructure.  At the same time, by introducing a new competitor, it will probably reduce or at least stabilize cable and satellite television fees. 
Universal service fund: This is the mysterious charge on your phone bill that currently subsidizes telephone service to remote parts of the country, as well as Internet access for schools and libraries.
Two parts of the USF must be rethought.  The first: should "universal service" be redefined as broadband Internet connectivity, rather than voice telephone service? And then if that's the case, then shouldn't VOIP and Internet access fees — not just telephone bills — bear some of the tax burden as well?
Some argue for the abolition of the USF altogether — but that seems unlikely, as that would impose an immediate and costly burden on many rural Americans. And going forward, without a USF, if providers started to "cherry pick" only affluent communities for broadband upgrades, that could worsen the digital divide for both rural and inner city customers. Congress has the chance to do the right thing here and make sure all Americans have decent access to the digital world — but it may prove to be a battle in this anti-tax era

Urbanexplorers view.......................................................
Now I am all for the internet being policed to a point not Big brother being allowed to look right through your firewall and scan your harddrive anytime they want     But chatrooms and things of that nature on the net itself im all for it.
  and im also for regulation to keep costs down for web access.....oh wait the web was meant to be free hmmmm 
However 
i find funny that the government wants to regulate the net but not the oil companies to keep gas prices at an affordable level 
its not going to stop until (here we go)
We The People (remember that little phrase) stand up for ourselves and say we are not going to take it anymore oh wait that did happen in Boston harbor i guess a lot has changed since then   

[undeath]

Remember when the companies first started offering internet access? It was slow going and now it's booming.

Be prepared for a second wave of this. There will be the expensive internet and then there will be the one that starts all over again, grabbing everyone fed up with it. 2-tiered internet system...

[urbanexplorer]

i believe your right and this has already happened with cable-internet in most major cable markets in RI for example you can order different levels of speed at different prices

[dmm]

The funny thing about the American Revolution is that the average colonist had a higher standard of living than the average Briton (and by that I mean people living in Britain, since obviously the colonists were mostly British, too). (Which also is cause to ponder one of the most quoted lies in American history: "The British are coming." Revere would never had said such a thing since they were *all* British. But anyway....)

It strikes me as a bit similar, really. That is, even with taxing and other fees, we'll likely have it better than most everyone else. Same with gas: We have some of the cheapest gasoline in the world, yet we're still bitching about it.

It's the involvement of the lobbyists and the influence of the private sector that has me worried most. Not that I trust the government, either, but there's a hell of a lot more accountability for the latter than the former.

[urbanexplorer]

The funny thing about the American Revolution is that the average colonist had a higher standard of living than the average Briton (and by that I mean people living in Britain, since obviously the colonists were mostly British, too). (Which also is cause to ponder one of the most quoted lies in American history: "The British are coming." Revere would never had said such a thing since they were *all* British. But anyway....)

from wikipedia
Revere was born probably in very late December, 1734, in Boston's North End. The son of a French Huguenot father and a Boston mother
from urbanexplorer
So Paul Revere was actually born in America and for him to say The british are comming really isnt too far fetched but none of us were there so who knows what really happened for those interested in our early history below is a link about Paul Revere its actually a good read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Revere

[insanebeaver]

well the sewer is for all sorts of shit litteraly lol