Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
For someone that is apparently in opposition to RFID, you seem to be remarkably trustworthy of the government's motivation to allow freedom to exist in other areas Westcountryman.

When I actually see set government proposals to limit the internet in such a way, then I will oppose them - I have seen no such thing yet.

RFID? You mean this? I'm opposed to certain uses (or rather, potential uses of the technology), but have nothing against the technology itself.
[Rep]

I'm assuming that all the posters on this forum use the internet in the proper, fair and legal way, e.g. somewhere on some data base our true details are held because we posted the correct details, so whats to stop us using and posting duff information about ourselves ithrough some system devised by the "future geeks".
Probably showing my ignorance now.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Little Englander (sour):
I'm assuming that all the posters on this forum use the internet in the proper, fair and legal way, e.g. somewhere on some data base our true details are held because we posted the correct details, so whats to stop us using and posting duff information about ourselves ithrough some system devised by the "future geeks".
Probably showing my ignorance now.

I'm probably ignorant on the subject myself, but if the ISP controls your web access how can you provide false info to your ISP who would send you the bill at the end of the month ?

I presume the ISP will be the ones controlling access, but I may be wrong.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
I'm probably ignorant on the subject myself, but if the ISP controls your web access how can you provide false info to your ISP who would send you the bill at the end of the month ?

I presume the ISP will be the ones controlling access, but I may be wrong.

You don't have to use a mainstream ISP (BT, Virgin, Tiscali, Sky etc).
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
You don't have to use a mainstream ISP (BT, Virgin, Tiscali, Sky etc).

But if legislation does occur, won't all ISP's be under an obligation to co-operate ?

I would presume so ? (I'm guessing again on this subject though)

Only time will tell whether any legislation will be passed that restricts net use, but we should be aware of any threat before it occurs.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
But if legislation does occur, won't all ISP's be under an obligation to co-operate ?

I would presume so ? (I'm guessing again on this subject though)

Only time will tell whether any legislation will be passed that restricts net use, but we should be aware of any threat before it occurs.

I have little doubt that 'illegal' ISPs would spring up, should such legislation come into force.
[Rep]

Geek to the rescue.

I echo the post I made on the same subject a while back:
'2012: The Year The Internet Ends?

'I highly doubt such a move would be successful.
Consumer technology has reached the point where it's possible to completely circumvent such things.

In particular, I could see a network of high-capacity routers in people's houses acting as a chain to a more powerful one with uncurtailed Internet access, no matter how expensive, with the network mainly consisting of those routers acting in a bridge role and each user paying a small fee to whoever controls the Internet access point so that they can afford the uncurtailed package offered by an ISP.
And, if nothing else, it would not be so hard to set up a second global Internet. The main problem is bandwidth, and that could be overcome by concerted action.

I would also have suggested secure proxies, but presumably any limited package would be based on allowing specific domains and IPs and disallowing others, and of course you would not allow a proxy in a limiting package.'

Also, in answer to allanon's question to me on that thread which I didn't notice, it's mentioned in the post - connectivity between routers is provided by placing routers in a bridge role.

There are problems with this - it's difficult to scale. But it's feasible, and any wrinkles could be easily ironed out.

g hall's comment was right on the mark:
'There are enough IT savvy people out there who will crack it and dreams of a controlled internet are just that dreams'
[Rep]

If this is about "Net Neutrality" then there are a number of points...

1) The government is only setting a framework, allowing ISPs to control traffic over their network, not getting involved directly.

2) Allowing ISPs to differetiante their service is not necessarily a bad thing. Would it be a bad thing if Vodafone, for example, struck a deal with Youtube whereby Youtube paid Vodafone a fee to ensure traffic prioritisation? Customers would benefit from faster Youtube videos, but other video saring sites would lose out since their videos would load at normal speed.

Or would it be acceptable for Tiscali to block Myspace but allow Facebook in return for a fee? Should they be treated equally, or is ther sufficient competition to allow for innovation in pricing? Or should T-Mobile be allowed to block VoIP traffic over their 3G broadband service?

My view is that no ISP would be foolish enough to start blocking websites, but would see the potential to provide higer quality of service levels to specific applications.

3) The UK is a different market to Canada/USA, with far greater competition in the access networks, and thus the danger of ending up with restricted use is less severe.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by harryaldridge:
If this is about "Net Neutrality" then there are a number of points...

1) The government is only setting a framework, allowing ISPs to control traffic over their network, not getting involved directly.

2) Allowing ISPs to differetiante their service is not necessarily a bad thing. Would it be a bad thing if Vodafone, for example, struck a deal with Youtube whereby Youtube paid Vodafone a fee to ensure traffic prioritisation? Customers would benefit from faster Youtube videos, but other video saring sites would lose out since their videos would load at normal speed.

Or would it be acceptable for Tiscali to block Myspace but allow Facebook in return for a fee? Should they be treated equally, or is ther sufficient competition to allow for innovation in pricing? Or should T-Mobile be allowed to block VoIP traffic over their 3G broadband service?

My view is that no ISP would be foolish enough to start blocking websites, but would see the potential to provide higer quality of service levels to specific applications.

3) The UK is a different market to Canada/USA, with far greater competition in the access networks, and thus the danger of ending up with restricted use is less severe.

1) I don't care who is blocking me/charging me - if I can't have net neutrality then I don't want it.

2) Personally I could see youtube as one of those sites blocked.

But anyhow, I don't see how your comment:
"Or would it be acceptable for Tiscali to block Myspace but allow Facebook in return for a fee? Should they be treated equally, or is ther sufficient competition to allow for innovation in pricing? "

makes any sense - why would people want to pay at all ? Why can't we just have free unrestricted access to whatever we want ? Why is net neutrality ever a bad thing ?

"My view is that no ISP would be foolish enough to start blocking websites"

They may either be forced to by govt or start blocking them or charging users to access them, hence pricing them out of being used - which seems to be the whole point.
[Rep]

You may find this interesting:

BBC NEWS | Technology | Net firms in music pirates deal

Originally Posted by :
Net firms in music pirates deal

Customers who illegally share music will get warning letters
Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online.

The deal, negotiated by the government, will see hundreds of thousands of letters sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music.

Hard core file-sharers could see their broadband connections slowed, under measures proposed by the UK government.

BT, Virgin, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse have all signed up.


Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI, which represents the music industry, said: "All of the major ISPs in the UK now recognise they have a responsibility to deal with illegal file-sharers on their networks."

Mr Taylor said it had taken years to persuade ISPs to adopt this view.

So far, the ISPs seem to be grabbing the carrot - while avoiding the stick

BBC Technology Correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones


Read more on Dot.Life

The plan commits the firms to working towards a "significant reduction" in the illegal sharing of music.

It also commits the net firms to develop legal music services. "Conversations are ongoing between record labels and ISPs," said Mr Taylor.

Letters to pirates

The BPI has focused on educational efforts and limited legal action in recent years, in contrast to the US, which has embarked on tens of thousands of lawsuits against alleged file sharers.

The six internet service providers have signed a Memorandum of Understanding drawn up by the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR).


HAVE YOUR SAY Why should I yet again pay for, say, the Beatles' White Album at full whack? I already bought it on LP, eight-track, cassette, and CD! This is those customers getting their own back
Mark, Hampshire
Send us your commentsThe Motion Picture Association of America has also signed up.

The BPI said the memorandum covered consumers who were both uploading and downloading music.

Mr Taylor said: "The focus is on people sharing files illegally; there is not an acceptable level of file-sharing. Musicians need to be paid like everyone else."

He added: "File-sharing (of copyright tracks without permission) is not anonymous, it is not secret, it is against the law."

At the same time the government has started a consultation exercise that could result in laws that force net firms to tackle music piracy. A working group will be set up under the auspices of regulator Ofcom to look at effective measures to tackle persistant file-sharers.

Mr Taylor said newspaper reports stating that online users could be subject to an annual levy to cover losses from file-sharing were incorrect.

"A levy is not an issue under discussion. It has not been discussed between us and government and as far as we are aware it is not on the table."

He said: "There should be effective mechanisms in place (to deter file-sharing) and as long as they are effective, we don't mind what they are."

The consultation document proposed that hard core file-sharers could have technical measures imposed, such as "traffic management or filtering and marking of legitimate content to facilitate identification".

In the past few weeks net firms Virgin and BT have sent letters to some customers identified by the BPI, which represents the UK record industry, as persistent music pirates.

'Long process'

Before now the BPI has called for a "three-strikes" system which would see net connections of persistent pirates terminated if three warnings went ignored.

Many net firms have resisted the call from the BPI and have said it is not their job to act as policemen.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME


More from Today programme

Feargal Sharkey, chief executive of British Music Rights, said the plan was "a first step, and a very big step, in what we all acknowledge is going to be quite a long process".

Mr Sharkey, formerly lead singer with The Undertones added: "Government, particularly in the UK, has now realised there is an issue, there is a problem there."

One BBC News website user Mark, from Hampshire, said he downloaded and shared files illegally and argued customers were "getting their own back".

In an e-mail, he said: "I used to run half a dozen record shops in the 80s and saw how far the fat cats of the record industry would go, in milking customers and retailers dry with more hyped rubbish."

"Why should I yet again pay for, say, the Beatles' White Album at full whack? I already bought it on LP, eight-track, cassette, and CD! This is those customers getting their own back."

"So will this make me sharing a CD with my next-door neighbour over the fence illegal?" he added.

Ea of dune
[Rep]