We should point out to Ed Vaizey that the internet needs net neutrality, despite his proposals
Ed Vaizey is making proposals that will stop ISPs (Internet providers) from having to respect net neutrality, i.e. giving all traffic equal access.
This would affect the economy, stifling innovation and competition, freedom of speech and the press, human rights, and is generally accepted to be a terrible idea, from Google to the BBC. Despite being very popular with ISPs, such as Verizon in the US, as they could sell access to content providers, this would destroy the internet, and we need to tell our minister that his idea is awful.
Despite the universally recognized benefits of the Internet revolution by academics and millions of Internet users everywhere, some special interests seek to undermine the core feature that has made the Internet so successful: its freedom.
The major threat to freedom of speech on the Internet today is website filtering and censorship by Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
Governments are responding to the increased influence of the new medium by seeking to control online activity, restricting the free flow of information, and otherwise infringing on the rights of users.
38 Degrees may not be available to be accessed, except at snail speed in the future and subject censorship. Governments are continuing to devote increasingly more attention and resources to on-line censorship and other forms of interference with online expression.
Defend our universal freedoms within a universal, common and unrestricted Internet.
Gordon Craig commented
Should we consolidate our votes to make them count and pick a campaign that best suits the "No Confidence/ General election vote?" I personally feel no confidence says it all and should then lead to a general election.
Ben Castelow commented
I think after reading this http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it, this needs to become a priority otherwise online action is going to become impossible!
If we don't stop this, we can kiss 38 degrees goodbye and then the only way the people will be able to get what they want is via bloody revolution.
Paul Thomas commented
This legislation will give the corporate-controlled governments a foot in the door to controlling what users can access via the internet.
Rupert Murdоch could easily buy up most ISPs.
Whoever controls the flow of information controls the people.
First they will shut off easy targets like paedophiles (or alleged ones), then it will be terrorists (or alleged ones), then protestors who rioted (or allegedly did so), then those who supported and facilitated the afore-mentioned (or allegedly did so).
Murdоch, MІ5, etc, with the massive economic and PR resources at their disposal, can easily put together a dirty tricks campaign against their political opponents.
If you don't have millions of pounds to hire the best lawyers, then a FREE INTERNET is your only possible protection.
Its the perfect tool to start censoring the internet. With Wikileaks, the blogging and tweeting of protests Governments right across the world are frankly, shitting themselves as the great unwashed get access to the truth and gain their very own proverbial soap boxes. Porn is the perfect place to start - as anyone objecting can be accused of being a pervert or some kind of child hating paedo.
Can we add this to the campaign ?
"All internet porn is to be blocked at the ISP level under a UK Government plan.
According to a Sunday Times story being republished around the globe the plan, to be discussed next month with major ISPs including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, would require all pornography to be blocked. Adults would then have to opt-in to get access to pornography. It is not clear at this point what kinds of materials would be considered porn and therefore blocked under the scheme.
The idea of an opt-in system was raised by Conservative MP Claire Perry in November, following a study that suggested one-in-three children under 10 had seen pornography on the internet. In 2007, the British Government asked ISPs to block child pornography using a list provided by the Internet Watch Foundation. Proponents of the opt-in porn blocking scheme have pointed to that trial as evidence a wider blocking scheme would be technically feasible.
UK communications minister Ed Vaizey told The Sunday Times that he hoped to convince ISPs to take on the scheme voluntarily.
"I'm hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years,'' he said.
It appeared some ISPs were prepared to take on the government plan, with one TalkTalk executive suggesting providers should be forced to filter porn if they do not choose to do so without coercion.
''If other companies aren't going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on. Legislation is a sledgehammer but it could work,'' executive director of strategy and regulation Andrew Heaney said. TalkTalk intends to introduce a service dubbed ''bright feed'' that would allow homeowners to restrict access to internet content based on a cinema-style rating system."
Once the blocks are in for porn then they can gradually chisle away at the other fundamental freedoms on the net. Give it a decade and it'll be sewn up tighter than it is in China right now. A very, very sad for freedom of expression.
Neil Maybin commented
The end of Net Neutrality in the UK would have a corroding effect on political and economic freedoms as big businesses start to carve up the internet for their own interests rather than those of the consumers they claim to serve.
David Good commented
Preposterous proposal. As if the internet wasn't mediated and censored enough already, the idea of giving priority to anything on the internet (over something else) fundamentally destroys the whole purpose of it as a portal for instantaneous communication and freedom of speech for everybody. Ed Viazey, you Sir, are a ridiculous individual.
This is a very important principle of the internet as it currently stands, the creation of a two tier internet is something that should be opposed in the strongest possible terms.
Net neutrality is not just something that should be supported because we support free speech or dissent, the reality is that a to tier internet would remove a significant amount of choice away from users, meaning that any competition between two services would not be based on the quality of the service they provide but their ability to pay for it to be pushed through the faster internet channels.
Agreed. The internet is one of the few remaining places freedom of speech truly exists and we cannot let it be the next thing sold off at our expense!
free world? thought that died long ago.. problem is the government have a distinct lack of knowledge when it comes to technology and they continue to make unworkable laws on things they have no idea about... take the Digital Economy Act...
you have plenty of Law firms sending out letters to suspected file shares asking for money yet they fail to grasp how easy it is to circumvent the systems they use to pick up file sharers, one quick google search can tell you how to fake your IP, and so many others out there have no idea how to setup adequate security on their wireless be it an open wireless or set using WEP encryption (as lets face it, WEP is as good as leaving an open wireless because its so easy to get around, l should know lve tested the tools on my own wireless and helped a few people access theirs because they didnt save the passwords when they reinstalled their computers).
Bernard Marx commented
Another brick in the wall behind which the breeding of corporate and government powers happens, eating away the last remains of what was once called the 'Free World'.
This is really important. It is also about the future of media, all media. This is about core values. Push for this campaign.
I am trying to set up an internet business. This does not encourage a level playing field if access to my site is slow and I can't pay / won't pay for something that should be equal to everyone.
This is a bad idea in so many ways and he's simply pandering to Murdoch and chums. Plus, it's a direct dig at the BBC (as the Conservatives love to do) regarding the iPlayer.
Alastair McKenzie commented
This is a really serious matter. The Internet... OUR Internet... has given us a decade or two of equality, where my voice and yours can be just as loud as any politician, businessman or media mogul.
No surprises that a Tory minister has chosen to side with business interests (the ability to charge twice for the same service) over those of ordinary citizens.
Unless we stop them, the gatekeepers are taking back control.
James Holmes commented
It would be easy to be complacent about this now, but opening the door to this kind of traffic shaping will be very hard to close in the coming years. If we don't fight for net neutrality now, we will badly regret it in the near future.
David Watts commented
We need to protect Net Neutrality, it is essential in order to maintain freedom of expression. With Net Neutrality removed we will see a massive debasement of plurality on line. Much in the same way that we run the risk of lowest common denominator driven TV.
Most of our media will be, increasingly, delivered via the web, we can not let it fall into a few conspiratorial grasping hands.
Ed Vaizey and his cronies evidently do not appreciate any of the core ideas that make the web vibrant. This is far too greater fundamental to be ignored. This campaign must run - as yet far too many people do not grasp what 'Net Neutrality' is. A campaign would help to act as a wake up call.
Agreed - this is one of the most important issues we could currently be campaigning on. Please consider supporting and votng for it.
We already pay for our connection. This is another layer of monetisation for a service already paid for. Why is it right for my useage to be given a lower priority over that of content I am not interested in because some company has bribed my ISP to give them preference? if this comes in I expect to see a reduction in my monthly fees (as if!!)
Time OFCOM acted to protect our interests for a change.
Andrew Thomson commented
This issue is the most important we face in this digital age. If Ed Vaizey gets his way this could be an end to freedom of speech on the Internet. This means that ISPs will have the freedom to filter content and push paid-for content over free content. What would happen if a well-funded company that was subject of a 38 Degrees campaign decided to pay an ISP to throttle content from 38 Degrees and at the same time allow content through from websites carrying their propaganda?