Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Whose Web is it, anyway?
zenstain
Member Posts: 24
The subject is the name of an article written in today's NY Daily News by Juan Gonzalez regarding new legislation in Washington to overhaul the Telecommunications Act:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/389908p-330660c.html
Some rather chilling (and more expensive) scenarios seemingly await us, especially this community which literally lives in cyberspace.
Comments
damn you know becouse i thought this was the OFF-TOPIC (as in not related to games) section.
that was a pretty good article, it must be pretty cool to have free internet but those idiot ISP's have to be so gay and charge us for it, unlike that one neighborhood. the government shold just be like screw you were giving everyone free internet.
I would've thought you'd note the obvious connection between Internet access and online gaming. Guess not. Did you even bother to read the article?
zen
This is all up for debate and, it doesn't hold anywater yet, the debate has been going on for a long time and if something like that is issued it'll be a long time from now.
Professor Hubert Farnsworth - That question is less stupid but, you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.
Well, there are three differenst legislations in front of both houses of Congress right now that directly impact this, so I imagine it won't be all that long a time before something is in fact shaped and issued, likely to the detriment of yours and my $'s. Here is a link from the NYC Independent Budget Office to a document highlighting the sponsers of each legislation and what it could mean if they were to pass:
http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/newsfax/insidethebudget146.pdf
Note this passage for the first rewrite under consideration (bold is mine):
Under the Ensign bill, New York and other localities would also
lose other forms of local control. Localities would be barred
from charging video providers fees for construction permits to
dig in public streets or roadways. Nor could cities require that
providers offer their telecommunications services in lowincome
communities or set other consumer protections. The
bill would also create barriers to localities forming their own
municipal wireless networks and limit the number of public,
education, and government channels cable providers would
have to make available to localities to four.
I'm a little surprised there's not more opinion here about this as if any of these rewrites of the bill are passed, every segment of the online gaming community (amongst many) would be directly impacted, almost certainly not for the better. I'm no fan of government-controlled business for the most part, but a deregulated media carrier industry that has total control over where and how a certain level of signal (if any, in some cases) is to be brought in, and at what price for each level, can't be a good thing and you'll almost certainly see a large segment of mostly the poorer population suffer. And I can't see why any given community that pools it's resources can't provide that same community with the service of online access if that's what their constituency wanted, other than the industry lobbyists furthering their money-grab, which is all this really is. I'd also love to hear from someone on the mmorpg.com staff around this topic.
zen
Too early to tell. Bill's bill is old and, they should revise it to the current standards. I guess that's what they're trying to do but, U.S. won't be the only people affect as the U.S. is the sole overseer of the internet.
Professor Hubert Farnsworth - That question is less stupid but, you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.
Imagine paying 25 - 50% more for the level of broadband you're currently accustomed to. Not that it's any great bargain for me here, i'm at $45/month, but if that bill goes up to $55-$60? Of course, I can keep paying my $45, but all that'll get me in this scenario is a throttled connection. Or if you're one of the millions of people out in the heartland, where it's miles and miles of rural America and Canada between the big cities where the carriers will make their real money? You think they're going to have an interest in maintaining the same kind of broadband connections (other than satellite)? Or in poor urban areas where they may feel that providing a tier 1 broadband trunk won't ultimately be worth it? All posibilities, and non-enforceable anymore, if any of it comes to pass.
zen