Internet nutrality

[dlaing]

JESUS CHRIST .... good thing I don't drink beer.

This crap belongs on the beer thread.

[Ballacraine]

Except that it isn't. You may have a vote on these internet measures, but non-US citizens like me don't. At least I can vote with my wallet against a given plutocratic corporation that offends me.

 

Aye, there is a correlation there to our situation with the EU too. <_>

 

Nige.

[dlaing]

Daily Show Report - A Call for Action on Net Neutrality

July 20th, 2006 by tkarr

 

On Wednesday night, the Daily Show revisited Senator Ted Stevens’ speech on Net Neutrality to demonstrate what the Internet would look like without this guiding principle.

 

Daily Show correspondent John Hodgman uses several envelopes or “packets” to illustrate how information travels across a neutral Internet. He then describes a world without Net Neutrality.

 

Here’s Hodgman’s exchange with show host Jon Stewart. Watch it and then call your senator today:

 

John Hodgman: The point is with Net Neutrality all these packets, whether they come from a big company or just a single citizen, are treated in the exact same way.

 

Jon Stewart: So what’s the debate? That actually seems quite fair.

 

Hodgman: Yes… Almost too fair. It’s as though the richer companies get no advantage at all. That’s why the big telecom and cable corporations are lobbying to create a special class of Internet service where, for example, this packet from Google and this one from Amazon get through very easily. But this packet from #@%!!TimeWarner.org somehow gets routed a little differently (Hodgman tears up an envelope representing the last packet and tosses it to the side).

 

Stewart: So that packet will not get through?

 

Hodgman: Oh no, it’ll get through. It’s just that they’ll travel on a second tier of the Internet, which, ironically, will be a series of tubes.

 

Later Hodgman says that if Net Neutrality fails we should all get ready “for the excitement of the information super-tube.”

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/

John Hodgman is the PC guy from Apple's latest PC vs. Mac commercials

EDIT here is a direct link to the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YedWtX9tKE...2Ecom%2Fblog%2F

to be censored in the future by the people that bring you the internet...

...and the video from the week before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DClkE64nFDY...ted&search=

[Guest ratchethack]

IMPORTANT UPDATE to the Net Neutrality fiasco - (see copy of article below)

 

Again, as I noted in post #2 in this thread, this most foul initiative is being perpetrated by the USUAL SUSPECTS attempting to force regulation, extort revenue, and stifle our remaining freedoms.

 

The usual foul propaganda mouthpieces have been working overtime, but have been halted -- but only temporarily.

 

As a result of the recent congressional failures of Net Neutrality here in the US, Sprint has taken a bold step. Europeans and others worldwide should well take notice because what happens here is certain to dictate your future WRT how you use the Web every day, what it costs, how & when content is controlled, and by whom.

 

Sprint has made a commitment to invest billions in Wi-Fi. Sprint would NOT have made this step without the recent failures of Net Neutrality. But like I said before, this is not the end. Those who would stifle competition, drive up consumer costs and find ways to implement CENSORSHIP (the real goal) are still hard at work. This will come up again and again until powerful political entities have their way -- unless we continue to do everything in our power to SHUT NET NEUTRALITY DOWN.

 

From yesterday's Wall Street Journal Op Ed page. Again - the WSJ is arguably the most widely respected, most frequently referenced, most credible, and most free from scandal, free from legal entanglements from fraud and libel, daily news publication on the planet.

 

Wi-Fi to the Max

by Paul Gigot, Editor of the Editorial Page, et al.

The Wall Street Journal, August 9, 2006; Page A10

 

SPRINT'S RETORT TO THE NET NEUTRALITY CROWD

 

The backers of so-called Net neutrality have lost nearly every battle in Congress so far, although they plan to take another tilt at that windmill when lawmakers return from recess in September.

 

Out in the real world, however, things are not proceeding according to script, at least for those who insist that what the Internet really needs is a brand-new layer of government regulation. Yesterday, Sprint announced plans to spend as much as $3 billion building a nationwide WiMax network that would provide high-speed Internet access to 100 million consumers by 2008, according to Sprint's estimate.

 

What does this have to do with Net neutrality? Well, WiMax is one of several emerging technologies that stand to reshape the Internet-service industry in the coming years. Those who argue that the government should enforce some politician's idea of "neutrality" on Internet service claim that the phone and cable companies enjoy a comfy duopoly on providing Internet access to consumers. According to this reasoning, these companies need to be regulated so they don't abuse their market position by trying to erect "tolls" on the information superhighway.

 

High-speed wireless Internet access, however, means no more duopoly. And WiMax is not the only contender. Starting today, the Federal Communications Commission is auctioning a big swath of wireless spectrum for cell-phone providers. The auction is overdue and beset by market-distorting preferences for certain bidders, but with luck the result will be a lot more wireless bandwidth to go around.

 

WiMax, meanwhile, operates in unlicensed spectrum, meaning Sprint doesn't have to shell out money in auctions to deploy the technology. WiMax is like a wireless home network or a hot-spot in a coffee-shop, but it works over much longer distances, allowing greater coverage and a wider variety of uses. WiMax is still unproven in a roll-out of this size, but the fact that Sprint is spending billions to give it a go is testimony to the dynamism of the high-speed Internet market.

 

A decade ago, the conventional wisdom was that the old-fashioned copper-wire phone network was an "essential facility." That is, it was unique, valuable and couldn't be replicated, so competition with the Baby Bells was impossible unless the "last mile" to homes was opened up to competitors to use. Today we have cable companies offering phone service and more and more cell-phone subscribers every day.

 

A similar thing is happening in the high-speed Internet space. Those who want to regulate broadband providers are saying that the phone and cable networks are too valuable and too hard to replicate for anyone to break up the duopoly. We guess Sprint didn't get the memo. If Congress should for some reason lose its cool and give in to the MoveOn.org crowd pushing for greater Internet regulation, it will likely come just in time for its backers, once again, to be proven wrong about the absence of competition in telecom.

[soloNH]

OK ratchet, now I'm getting confused!

 

According to the Wall Street report Paul Gigot states.

 

"If Congress should for some reason lose its cool and give in to the MoveOn.org crowd pushing for greater Internet regulation, it will likely come just in time for its backers, once again, to be proven wrong about the absence of competition in telecom.

 

I am under the impression that Move ON is advocating net nutrality, how would this be interpeted as "giving in". Seems to me that all they are trying to do is prevent telecommunication companys from charging extra for prefered linking on searches.

 

Say what you want about move on . org but I think they are "right on" on this one.

[Guest ratchethack]

OK ratchet, now I'm getting confused!

 

According to the Wall Street report Paul Gigot states.

 

"If Congress should for some reason lose its cool and give in to the MoveOn.org crowd pushing for greater Internet regulation, it will likely come just in time for its backers, once again, to be proven wrong about the absence of competition in telecom.

 

I am under the impression that Move ON is advocating net nutrality, how would this be interpeted as "giving in". Seems to me that all they are trying to do is prevent telecommunication companys from charging extra for prefered linking on searches.

 

Say what you want about move on . org but I think they are "right on" on this one.

SoloNH -- DO NOT let the propagandists at Moveon.org and others confuse you on this!!!! CONFUSION IS THEIR MODUS OPERANDI!!! DO NOT let the words "Net Neutrality" mislead! DECEIT is the only way they will achieve their goal -- CENSORSHIP and CONTROL over Web content.

 

Net Neutrality is to the Web what The Fairness Doctrine has been to talk radio - an attempt to regulate and control content. In other words, to SHUT DOWN free speech. Fortunately, there has been enough integrity left in Congress to have shut The Fairness Doctrine down repeatedly -- the last time was against the initiative of Hitlery's attempted re-introduction of The Fariness Doctrine during the Klinton 1 regime. The Fairness Doctrine will ALSO come back again. Should Hitlery gain the White House in '08, NN and TFD will both will be at the top of the Klinton 2 agenda. It'll be as essential to them as the illegal seizure of the FBI files on every potential opponent in Washington was in the first days of Klinton 1 for blackmail purposes -- exactly the modus operandi they had employed in Little Rock to such powerful effect.

 

Gigot is exactly right. Competition in Wi-Fi delivery is essential for continuance of the kind of freedom YOU are enjoying on the Web today without exhorbitant fees and open access to content. If Moveon.org has its way, you can kiss the freedom you take for granted today on the Web goodbye forever.

 

May I suggest further study with both eyes wide open!!

[dlaing]

Once again it is the little guy against the big corporations that want to effectively demolish the roughly egalitarian free cyberspace and replace it with a corporate super toll road. The same way mom and pop shops everywhere are losing out to corporate formula malls, they have the same plan controlling what you are likely to view on the internet.

John Stewart, Google, SoloNH, Craigslist, and Move-On.org are absolutely right on this.

The Senators supporting bills that prohibit your ISP from discriminating and blocking what you get access to are right on this.

RatchetHack, a bunch pawns in congress, AT&T and other major ISPs are wrong on this.

I liked this comment on a Libertarian Forum

I'd rather have the government tell the companies that they can't restrict our choices than let the companies give us as narrow a range of choices as possible. We can't just get new ISP services that will be able to take customers from the rest of the ISPs be being network-neutral, they won't just let you lay down some cable. If anyone could just lay network cable then I'd have a problem with a law like this. But they can't. Internet services is not a free market, you can't just enter the market. So we need to have the government tell the companies not to do it. Geographical monopolies of ISPs that would only offer services that they offer and block access to better services that are less expensive is restricting the market for such services.

 

Nonfree markets require government oversight. If you don't want the government looking over it, get the government totally out of the equation. Either enforce network neutrality because you enforce oligopoly, or enforce neither and let the market choose network neutrality on it's own (because customers will want it).

 

Customers with ISPs that are against network neutrality don't have a choice to just get another ISP that supports it. Free market won't bring that option in for consumers to choose because it's not a free market.

 

So until the government gets out of the way of letting new ISPs form, they need to enforce network neutrality.

Posted by: Zatu at February 11, 2006 02:17 PM

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000213.shtml

[Guest ratchethack]

John Stewart, Google, SoloNH, Craigslist, and Move-On.org are absolutely right on this.

The Senators supporting bills that prohibit your ISP from discriminating and blocking what you get access to are right on this.

RatchetHack, a bunch pawns in congress, AT&T and other major ISPs are wrong on this.

I liked this comment on a Libertarian Forum

 

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000213.shtml

Now here's a surprise. Is there any hair-brained lunacy from the Left that you haven't swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, Dave?

 

I propose "eyes wide open" and here comes Dave with "eyes wide shut". Wasn't that a Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman movie??

 

I've provided the argument of the editor of the editorial page of arguably the most highly respected, most credible news daily on the planet to back up my position. Can you offer any support for your position other than a blog and a vague reference to the usual gutter-level political propagandist mouthpieces?

 

Have you ever noticed that all of the great International "heroes" of the Left, the ones who spent their entire lifetimes railing against freedom -- and specifically against the horrible oppression of the US -- the very ones who've destroyed hope in their own countries for millions, murdered millions more with their death squads, imprisoned and killed their opposition arbitrarily and with impunity, and established the most oppressive terrorist criminal regimes in history, are STILL your heroes? Once you've fallen for their propaganda, I reckon that falling for every fascist, socialist, repressive concept that's failed everywhere else is at least consistent. . . . .

 

Do you suppose that in his heyday, El Maximo Lider would've approved of state regulated, wholly captive enterprise on the Web under the guise of protecting "the rights of the people" against oppression by private business, and "sold it" to "the people" as "good for them" on the way to building the thriving powerhouse economy that The People's Paradise of Cooba is today?

 

BTW, Dave - here's a recent shot (see below) of one of your biggest Lefty icons - turns out he's not dying after all. He's following millions of "happy and contented" Cuban citizens who've risked their lives taking one of his trademark Cuban luxury cruises on his way to our shores in fear for their lives. Now that brother Raul seems to've seized power, I reckon Fidel isn't interested in sticking around for the mass celebrations in the streets of Habana in great relief over the fact that now he's finally out. He might not survive the expressions of "appreciation" by his beloved countrymen.

 

What do you bet that Fidel's got a suitcase (see below) full of his favorite Cohiba Habanos?? If so, I reckon he could command a pretty good price once he hits the beach. Compared to Cooba, we still have relatively unregulated supply and demand and something that still retains the vestiges of a free market economy. Despite all The Left has done to undermine it, it's still a beautiful thing.

[dlaing]

Here comes Ratchet, as always, with not so unpartisan, not so unbiased views....why does it always get so personal?

Now here's a surprise. Is there any hair-brained lunacy from the Left that you haven't swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, Dave?

 

I propose "eyes wide open" and here comes Dave with "eyes wide shut". Wasn't that a Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman movie??

 

I've provided the argument of the editor of arguably the most highly respected credible news daily on the planet to back up my position. Can you offer any support for your position other than a blog and a vague reference to the usual gutter-level political propagandist mouthpieces?

 

Have you ever noticed that all of the great International "heroes" of the Left, the ones who spent their entire lifetimes railing against freedom -- and specifically against the horrible oppression of the US -- the very ones who've destroyed hope in their own countries for millions, murdered millions more with their death squads, imprisoned and killed their opposition arbitrarily and with impunity, and established the most oppressive terrorist criminal regimes in history, are STILL your heroes? Once you've fallen for their propaganda, I reckon that falling for every fascist, socialist, repressive concept that's failed everywhere else is at least consistent. . . . .

 

Do you suppose that in his heyday, El Maximo Lider would've approved of state regulated, wholly captive enterprise on the Web under the guise of protecting "the rights of the people" against oppression by private business, and "sold it" to "the people" as "good for them" on the way to building the thriving powerhouse economy that The People's Paradise of Cooba is today?

 

BTW - there's a recent shot (see below) of one of your biggest Lefty icons - turns out he's not dying after all. He's following millions of "happy and contented" Cuban citizens who've risked their lives taking one of his trademark Cuban luxury cruises on his way to our shores in fear for their lives. Now that brother Raul seems to've seized power, I reckon Fidel isn't interested in sticking around for the mass celebrations in the streets of Habana in great relief over the fact that now he's finally out. He might not survive the expressions of "appreciation" by his beloved countrymen.

 

What do you bet that Fidel's got a suitcase (see below) full of his favorite Cohiba Habano's?? If so, I reckon he could command a pretty good price once he hits the beach. Compared to Cooba, we still have a relatively unregulated supply and demand and something that still retains the vestiges of a free market economy. Despite all The Left has done to undermine it, it's still a beautiful thing.

If he says my eyes are wide shut, may I say his head is up his ass?

Cheap shots, no content.

You want content, read the Bills.

When Verizon advertises, "Its the network", they mean it is Verizon's network, you are just paying for what they control. Verizon just released a phone called Chocolate, and it almost has internet access, well, not really...it has the type of internet access that the powers that be want to limit you to....Chocolate, limits you to VCast a tiny little world where you can get news, music and video from them, and them only...how is that for freedom???

And guess what?!?!? They even let you chose from a list of which news organisation to get brainwashed from, CNN or CBS!!!!! Fantastic!

The sheople will be lining up for their pseudo-chocolate rations. It ain't real chocolate, it is sugar coated crap!!

Now, how would you like it if your internet connection headed in the direction of these limitations??

It is not going to happen overnight, it will be slow and sexy like a pole dancer prying you from your money...but it is your choice, that is freedom.

My friends have gotten nasty letters from their ISPs for downloading copywritten videos from peer to peer sources. Under the guise of copywrite protection, they are in the early stages of preparing the internet, so that you download videos from them and their friends.

At first they are not going to stop you from downloading from who ever you want, but they will start with the peer to peer. Then they will give favored internet speed to the services that they chose.

An express lane for powers that be to suck more money out you.

Freedom of enterprise vs. personal freedom, that is what it is all about, and it is not what Al Gore envisioned when he helped pave the internet super highway....or is it? The sly bastard!!!!

[Guest ratchethack]

Eh?? I couldn't find anything coherent in the above post.

 

But the following (see article below) may lend some badly needed coherence, as well as intelligence and perspective. As uncanny as it would seem, (!) I swear to you that I hadn't seen this article before my last post.

 

Again, as Gigot so accurately and knowingly pointed out in his article in post #2 in this thread, Net Neutrality serves the economic self interest of Google (among others) and the egalitarian PRETENSE of the socialist pro-regulation knuckleheads at Moveon.org. [and] "...consumer benefit has nothing to do with it."

 

The following account is a PERFECT ILLUSTRATION of what happens when Leftist Fascism gains control and obliterates free speech, exactly as Net Neutrality would ensure. Sure, there are knuckleheads everywhere who think this is exactly where the US and Europe - indeed, the rest of the world - need to go just as fast as their tiny, ignorant Marxist minds can get us there. Net Neutrality would certainly take us a giant step in the same direction so brilliantly demonstrated for a watching, un-brainwashed world as Cooba. Hitlery would get us there on the accelerated plan, starting with Net Neutrality, which would grease the historically well-worn skids of her Marxist agenda. (See abundant historical documentation of Hitlery's formative political orientation and mentorship under the extended tutelage of Saul Alinsky).

 

Count me among the vast population of sane, still mostly free, clear-thinking people who haven't allowed ourselves to become brainwashed, who know history, and don't wish to live under Hitlery under any circumstances. We've seen the original movie, "Power to the People! Join the People's Paradise!" and all its dozens of sequels ad nauseum, and we know the ending is ALWAYS the same, no matter how many times the Leftist knuckleheads insist we clean up the same old dead Marxist nonsense, dress it up in the latest propaganda camouflage, and try to pass off the re-run sequels as premier events.

 

http://www.michaelhodges.com/missing.html

 

From today's Wall Street Journal - again - historically the most highly credible, highly regarded, and arguably the most widely respected news daily on the planet.

 

Fidel's Favorite Channel

by Paul Gigot, Editorial of the Editorial Page, et al.

The Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2006; Page A12

 

It's a safe bet that Fidel Castro is not tuning into TV Marti from his hospital bed, assuming he isn't yet in a morgue. Ever since the U.S. broadcast service was launched by the U.S. government in 1990, joining Radio Marti in providing Cubans with honest reporting about their country and the world, El Maximo Lider has succeeded in jamming many telecasts.

 

Not any more. On Saturday night at 6, TV Marti went airborne. It is now broadcasting six nights a week from aboard a C-130, leased by the U.S. government and flown out of the Florida Keys. Jamming a broadcast that keeps moving out of range of the jammers is a lot harder than blocking satellite broadcasts, which is the way TV Marti's 24-7 programming usually goes out over the airwaves.

 

TV Marti was scheduled to go airborne later this year but the timetable was speeded up when Castro fell ill. "The transmission from this plane is a fulfillment of the President's commitment to break the Cuban dictatorship's information blockade on the Cuban people and will increase their access to timely and accurate information that they need at this critical time," Pedro Roig, director of the agency that oversees TV and Radio Marti, said in a statement.

 

To inaugurate the new service, TV Marti is broadcasting statements by President Bush, taped last Thursday, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, taped Friday. They are "letting the Cuban people know that in this time of uncertainty, the U.S. is there with a message of hope and democracy," says Alberto Mascaro, TV Marti's chief of staff.

 

TV Marti's programming consists mostly of news reports and news analysis, says Mr. Mascaro. But there's also a popular satirical show called "La Oficina del Jefe," or "Office of the Chief," starring a tall fellow with a long beard and a cigar. In recent weeks, Mr. Mascaro says, "La Oficina del Jefe" has been featuring a character named Raul.

[dlaing]

Eh?? I couldn't find anything coherent in the above post.

Got glasses?