Google & Microsoft vs. AT&T & Verison: The Cage Match Over Net Neutrality (1826 hits)
Category: NewsLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary
Rating: 0.93 on 96 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-06-21 12:02:39 EDT
See this number: (202-224-3121)
By using it now, you could save the internet.
If you don't use that number now, you're going to miss the opportunity to have your say over whether you will, in the future, have the right to see all the same content as everyone else on the internet without paying extra for it. Allow me to explain...AND PAY ATTENTION BECAUSE THIS CONCERNS YOU TOO!
There is a fight going on right now in the Congress over something that will affect EVERY INTERNET USER, 'net neutrality'. For those who don't know what 'net neutrality' is or means to them, let me ask you a few questions...
a) Have you ever downloaded an mp3 online?
b) Have you ever watched an online video?
c) Have you ever shared a large file of any kind?
d) Do you enjoy speedy service and the ability to see all the same content as everyone else?
e) Do you pay a flat rate per month for your current internet service?
f) Have you ever logged onto the internet?
If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', then you will be affected by this new bill that has been brought before congress.
Here's the jist of it:
Companies like AT&T and Verison have lobbied for legislation that will allow them to charge people extra for fast and ensured delivery of certain larger file types or graphic intensive applications like mp3's, mpeg, mov, etc.
What they want to do is make the internet you now know and enjoy into the slow lane of a multi-lane superhighway. That means that you may no longer be guaranteed to get the same files that people in the fast lane are getting either at the same speeds or AT ALL!
Here's basically how the whole system works, for those not in the know...
The phone and cable companies own the fiber and phone lines across which internet activity is run.
ISP's, or Internet Service Providers, install their own equipment at major intersections of all these lines and tap into them for a certain fee to the phone company.
Now the phone company, in order to try to generate more profits, are trying to make it so that a company doesn't pay based on a prearranged price, but they pay for what their users use in terms of bandwidth.
If this proposal, which is in the House now, passes, the ISP's will have no other choice than to pass along this cost to the customers and change their rates so that customers are charged extra for using more bandwidth.
This will have PROFOUND effects on the way we use the internet and WHO uses the internet. This means that people will no longer be going to myspace and downloading free music from independent artists unless they're willing to charge for it. Furthermore, places like myspace (or possibly ubersite) might won't exist at all unless the site developers are still able to generate enough revenues to pay their own bills.
This could see a general consolidation of power, so to speak, on the internet as site after site of free, available material drops out of the game because they are unable to pay their bills. Same with ISPs. If smaller internet providers, like the one I work for, have to pass along these additional costs to their customers as described above, companies like mine will no longer able to compete with the majors and will have to sell out or close up shop.
BellSouth and AT&T and SBC have now merged back after their monopoly was busted up back in the early 80s. They have almost rebuilt the monopolistic empire they had then, and the FCC is doing nothing about it. If Congress passes this bill now, people, we're not just talking about the internet here, we're talking about the very way in which we communicate, and the availability of our personal conversations to the government as well. It'll be like a one-stop-shop for anyone looking to plug into your phone conversations.
This is fascism, folks. This is healthy capitalism turning slowly to fascism, and I'm sorry, but it you don't see this now, if you don't draw a line in the sand now and say "ENOUGH", their powers are only going to grow while your choices and liberties shrink.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Fight_for_Net_Neutrality/1149783783
http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
User Reviews
Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2006-06-28 15:18:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
given that the cons will far outweigh the pros of internet regulation, i concur with ets.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-25 17:44:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, on a related note, the FCC is forcing VOIP (Voice Over IP) telephone services to pay 7% tax now too, even though they only make cell phone companies pay 4%.
http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/2709/fcc_rules_that
Yet another indicator how the FCC is controlled by the corporate lobby. Stamping out competition.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-25 17:38:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's funny though, I don't see where anyone pointed out my general mistake, which tells me that no one else really even bothered to look it up besides me and Silvr.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-25 17:35:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Silvrwolf: After a long and tedious read of that bill in an effort to make a witty and decisive retort I have realized my essential mistake.
The bill I linked to below was the bill of amendments that were suggested by Congressional members seeking to PRESERVE Net Neutrality, not the other way around.
The mistake was all mine.
The original bill, which jeopardizes the neutrality and free competition was already passed back in April with support from house Republicans and the major phone and internet providers. It's called the COPE Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h.r.5522:
When reading the articles, I must have somehow confused the COPE Act and the new H.R.5252 bill, which seeks to revise and clarify things, adding in more protections.
The funny thing is, I already knew that because I've commented on COPE before. Oh well.
This should clarify the issue: http://news.com.com/House+rejects+Net+neutrality+rules/2100-1028_3-6081882.html?tag=nefd.pulse
Unfortunately, the bill you read, H.R.5252 was shot down in the House by the Republicans and 58 Democrats on Thursday. The Republicans sided with the telecoms on the grounds that more regulation would "stifle future growth of the internet", which, if you read the bill as I did, you already know that not to be true.
AT&T and BellSouth are already back together, and SBC has been swallowed up in that as well, so the trend is clear...the telecom industry is monopolizing once again and no one is doing anything to stop it, particularly Republicans, whose hands-off, less-government excuse isn't going to work.
My apologies for fucking this up. I had the basic message right - "URGE NET NEUTRALITY" - but the details of which bill was being brought before the house was off. I hope if anyone called their congressman, they made it clear they were "FOR Net Neutrality" and not "against this bill".
Anyway...damage done. Sorry everyone.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-06-25 06:39:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
pwned via silvrwolf.
seriously ets, while i enjoyed the fact that this rant was slightly different, read what silvrwolf is saying. it is what i and others have been telling you about yourself, only far more mature and reasoned. you are not as informed as you think you are.
Submitted by sebcharrot (user info) at 2006-06-24 12:46:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is ridiculous. The internet is, for the best and worst reasons, the most revolutionary creation in the last century. The greatest thing about the internet is that there is no monopoly on it. Information is free. Your choices are unimpeded. Anyone can have a say. And now people want to diminish it in order to profit from it. This is the perfect example of what is so wrong with our world.
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-24 12:38:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Let the market sort it out. The success of the internet is a lack of control over content. Anyone can make a website or publish works, so almost everyone does. This results in enormous amounts of useless shit, but also more useful shit than has ever been available.
What this bill is...is the telcos want to be able to give preferential service to their own content. So you can get VOIP through some third party but the service will be better through your local telco's service. You can get Internet TV through anybody, but it will be choppier than through your local telco. The next step is lettting third parties to take step in but charge them a fee to do it.
They aren't going to cut anyone off. They are going to boost other things. This is fine at face value but what it results in is...multiple tiers of internet service. It puts anybody who doesn't own pipes at a competitive disadvantage when selling services. Even worse, the companies that own the pipes are a monopoly or at best have a single competitor. So there's no way to bypass whatever fees they want to extract.
Another point:
The cable and telcos have been arguing that without the ability to charge high bandwidth websites for access, they won't be able to deliver the next generation of HDTV on demand video streaming services. This is a bullshit argument.
A cable modem segment only occupies one 6 mhz. band, or a single analog cable channel, and contains 27 megabits of broadcast ability a second. Basically there are ~80 or so analog channels available. The cable company only takes a single analog channel on their network to deliver broadband Internet to an entire neighborhood or small town. They also deliver digital cable by compressing about 3 or 4 channels down to another 6 mhz. analog channel. That's why the big push to get people off of analog cable... each one of those channels is worth about half a T3 worth of digital bandwidth from the central office to the customers.
The truth is, the cable companies and telcos have tons of bandwidth...way more than they could ever use. This argument that internet, which only occupies a single ~27 mpbs channel, can possibly interfere with any of the 80+ other ~27mbps data streams is laughable at best.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-24 11:23:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-23 18:22:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
Silvrwolf, I'll read the entire bill a little later and we'll discuss it, but I assure you this bill is going to allow the phone companies to rule over the internet and change the fundamental way it works. It's another avenue for monopolising power.
Call your congressman and discuss it. Ask him why you keep hearing so much from your friends in the telecomm industry (i.e. ME) about how this is going to change the internet by driving out competition on all fronts and make it possible for poorer people to recieve less services than the well-to-do.
------------------------
So let me get this straight: you've not even read the bill, yet you post this as a call to action for everyone? Then, you go on in your above comment to say that you KNOW it's just a means for a telecomm monopoly. How exactly do you know that if you haven't even read the bill? I'd like to think that if you're trying to establish credibility for you claims, you'd have at least properly researched what you were crusading against. You're so much smarter than this, man. I thought you were above making half-informed decisions.
Since I've actually read the entire bill, let me outline some things:
- The bill is ANTI-monopoly. It has clear language stating that no potential franchisee shall be denied a franchise because of an already established franchisee in the same location.
---> this means Adelphia can't muscle me out of a particular area should I want to open a telecom business.
- It has quality control measures, meaning that if I want to set up shop in Adelphia's market, I have to offer at least the same amount of public, gov't and educational channels.
- It clearly states that no franchisee shall be allowed to refuse service to an area based on that area's income.
---> that's in direct conflict with your post and the above statement.
- It has NOTHING about bandwidth[bw]-consumption, tiered-bw, or any text at all relating to transfer speeds.
---> the only thing mentioned about bw was text aimed at making broadband available to MANY MORE markets. It's essentially a further proliferation amendment to the Telecom Act.
- There's nothing in the bill that even remotely grants any more power to the TC Giants.
---> it's aimed at preventing them from strong-arming a particular market, actually opening a new avenue for the big companies to compete more directly. Ex. Adelphia and Comcast can then erect and maintain their own equipment in the exact same market area. That is, if Adelphia has established transmission lines, they cannot use their clout to prevent Comcast from establishing their own lines. This is residual from my AEP comparison, i.e. Adelphia can't force Comcast to lease their equipment.
- There's nothing in the bill that says really anything about the phone companies. It's a bill about cable services.
---> no phone, no DSL, no wireless, no satellite. If you're going to fundamentally change the way the internet is run, then it makes sense to actually cover at least most of the avenues through which it's delivered. Cable is not the only method of delivery.
Bottom line, it is absolutely RECKLESS to start a crusade without knowing your enemy, and you know this. You've fallen victim to the propaganda fed to you from a conspiracy site. You're suffering from the very thing you claim to fight against: misinformation. I've always respected the amount of research you used to put into your posts. Recently though, you've been too quick to jump into the pulpit and pound your fists on the podium to even go and do something as simple as read the evidence for yourself.
You can't say that my source is biased, either. My opinion is formed solely around the bill itself, not someone else's comments and interpretations.
Don't get me wrong: I think a fire and brimstone sermon is good for the tortured soul, but only if the preacher isn't reading their prophecies from fiction.
Submitted by Paul_Monroe (user info) at 2006-06-23 23:15:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
WHOA - slow down there ETS, this sounds like exactly what we have in Australia and NZ at the moment... Basically I have unwired access that is amazingly slow but I can upgrade and pay more each month for a higher download limit and faster speed - basic plan is $15 p.m all the way up to $120 p.m (AUD) I pay $35 p.m....
ETS its NEVER the end of the world
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-23 23:09:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If any of you want to preserve your right to a free open internet I recommend two things:
1. Learn what a proxy is and how to use one.
2. Keep an eye on this site: http://www.eff.org/ (contribute if you can)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-23 18:22:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So, did everyone call their congressman over this?
Silvrwolf, I'll read the entire bill a little later and we'll discuss it, but I assure you this bill is going to allow the phone companies to rule over the internet and change the fundamental way it works. It's another avenue for monopolising power.
Call your congressman and discuss it. Ask him why you keep hearing so much from your friends in the telecomm industry (i.e. ME) about how this is going to change the internet by driving out competition on all fronts and make it possible for poorer people to recieve less services than the well-to-do.
EVERYONE, HURRY UP AND CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN, PLEASE!
A few corporations already own virtually everything, it's only gonna get worse with this bill. Diversity=freedom.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-06-23 15:33:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/
Watch today's (friday june 23rd 2006).
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-06-22 16:19:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
damn these corporate bitches and their henchmen in Congress
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2006-06-22 14:04:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I heard about this on NPR. Greed makes for disaster when it overcomes a company as massive as AT&T. There's been local commercials on in NJ for a few weeks - according to the annoying song, "Verizon is lobbying Trenton to triple your cable tax[es]," but THIS shit is fucking bananas.
I don't know if this is directly related to what you're talking about, but I also heard something about how internet use records will soon become "business records" for big ISPs, which of course means they can sleep (marginally) more soundly at night when they hand over sensitive data to government and probably commercial companies, because there's no privacy policy conflict.
What exactly is the phone number for? I may call it.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:46:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Molari, there's actually no text in the bill delineating anything about transfer speeds or bandwidth other than an aim at the proliferation of broadband services. It's more a regulatory outline of the service requirements a provider must maintain in order to remain a national franchise.
Honestly, after reading the bill myself, I have no clue how this became a hot topic. I guess our representatives get together at a big cognac parties and toss darts at the bills currently before them. When an innocuous bill is hit, the majority leaders flip a coin to see who takes the "for" and who takes the "against" side.
It's like someone said "internet regulation" and panties got twisted before anyone even looked at the bill. "Oh my non-denominational-entity-who-may-or-not-be-referred-to-as-'god'! They're going to disconnect the internet!" I'm being facetious, of course, but hopefully you get my point.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:13:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I wonder if they are going to make wifi theft a federal crime with this update. Then the FBI can scour the neighborhoods of most of the USA with the U.S. citizens paying the bill for their wages.
Submitted by Molari (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:11:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
P.S. Also priceless online resources like google and wikipedia which actually educate the WHOLE world for free would essentially become inaccessible :(
Submitted by Molari (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:10:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I hope you're right SilvrWolf. Cuz if small businesses, free websites and consumers have to pay increased rates just to afford decent transfers... hell the whole internet community might die. And then I would have no friends :(
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:10:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
How the sides have turned... The Democrats along with Microsoft & Google are having to pass REGULATIONS to protect the consumer. What a sad freaking state of affairs...
Generally I am opposed to these constant ridiculous regulations (and they are ridiculous) because the free market (unregulated) tends to solve any problems by itself through competition.
But when there is no competition, that is a serious problem. This probably is the situation we are in. I do not believe the overhyped internet stories of a "fast lane" and "slow lane" 100%, but there is merit to their claims. But, Mr. Conspiracy Theory, shouldn't you realize that 99.9% of the internet is going to bash a policy that allows these major telecom giants to do whatever they want? So any "news" story on the internet, outside of the at&t website, you have to watch for extreme bias.
As a sidenote, you call it "fascist" but the government oppressing with dictorial control is fascist. This is not fascist, but a typical battle of regulation vs. free market capitalism.
If there are only 2-3 major players (as the oil markets are damn close to that) in any industry that is vital to the American people, I don't think we can shrug off this type of regulation like many republicans are doing.
So lets clarify what is going on, ETS: The US Congress is re-writing (to modernize) the Telecommunications Act and the big telecom giants do not want legislation that severely regulates their behavior (because then they can do whatever the fuck they want). Many democrats along with some internet-freedom type organizations (obviously economic liberals) want lots and lots of regulation to legislate what they can and can't do. I don't hate people who are economic liberals because they have been proven right in the past in regards to the banking system. They may be on the right side of this issue.
As much of a no-regulation libertarian I am, there is a major problem when there are is a oligopoly situation when these groups cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own.
Sadly, this should happen to the oil companies but you won't see people arguing for it much.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:31:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-22 11:28:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Wow! I'm rather wordy after reading 60+ pages of boring-ass legislation proposals. This shows how much of a loser I am: I actually took notes as I read it.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-22 11:25:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Alrighty then. I just read the 62 pages of text in the bill and see very little evidence supporting the claims you've made here. If anything, it describes almost identically what I said I thought would come out of it in one my earlier reviews.
The bill is more concerned with distribution of services and balanced competition rather than content. It's to establish franchising guidelines while incorporating legislature on new technologies (VOIP, E-911 services, etc.). Previously, a company like Adelphia could come into an area without cable service and set up shop. They could then use their corporate and local political muscle to prevent competitors from establishing new transmission lines in the public right-of-ways and easements. Because of the lax competition laws, Adelphia could then offer to lease their equipment to the competitor at a highly inflated rate, thus making the potential competitor unable to, er, compete. This legislation appears to be aiming at curbing that.
If anything, the bill is more oriented to the consumers' side than the providers'. For instance, the bill has clear text that states that no provider shall deny its service to an area because of that area's income. It also states that any company/person who receives a national franchise shall not be disallowed from providing their service in an area with a previously established provider, so long as they offer the same number of public, educational and governmental channels.
There are a few items in the bill which seem a bit sketchy in their wording and leave some things open to interpretation. But like many bills that get passed, as soon as someone starts abusing these "loopholes", the item will be amended.
All I see here is a relatively consumer-friendly bill. It encourages the provision of services to more areas, makes getting a national franchise a little easier to get and makes revocation of said franchise easier, as well. It also proposes to standardize 911/E-911 services in all areas that provide cable. This is nothing in there that changes or even addresses anything about DSL or satellite services so how this could change the whole of the internet, I have no clue.
Brad, I think you've fallen victim to the same propaganda machine that you want to fight against. The difference here being that you're in the liberal, ultraviolet end of the spectrum while many of the proponents are in the conservative, infrared end. They agendas both ends serve are still invisible.
If you'd care to discuss these things, all I ask is that you outline specific areas/text in the bill and address them one at a time. I'm here until 2:30 today.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-22 10:03:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-22 02:00:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
web site owners will get hit
web site users may not
--------------------------
If the website owners get hit they will have to start selling content or go under, either way the user will end up paying either with having less choice, or paying more.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-06-22 08:30:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What depresses me is the look of adoration in the eyes of economists when they look at outcomes like this.
Submitted by sinna (user info) at 2006-06-22 08:24:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Well goddamn, I just read an entire ETS post.
That would suck, but seriously, are you on medication, or skipping medication?
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-22 02:00:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
web site owners will get hit
web site users may not
Submitted by nephilim (user info) at 2006-06-22 01:57:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
uninformed
Submitted by Spuds002 (user info) at 2006-06-21 23:03:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat
Submitted by Gloosh (user info) at 2006-06-21 20:32:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm glad someone here brought it up.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 19:13:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-06-21 19:08:03 (#)
Ranking: -2
Glad to see you're not back or anything.
Dipshit.
Now go retaliate or something.
===
For the love of god, jay. Just pay him the hundred bucks, enjoy your blowjob and move on.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-06-21 19:08:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Glad to see you're not back or anything.
Dipshit.
Now go retaliate or something.
Submitted by Vengance (user info) at 2006-06-21 17:45:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Mine was even lamer:
Congressman John Hostettler
<imain08.at.mail.house.gov> to me
More options 10:29 am (6 hours ago)
Thank you for contacting the office of Congressman John N. Hostettler. In
order to receive a response, please ensure that you have included your
current mailing address, as we respond to constituent inquiries by postal
mail.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 17:16:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Rodham"
That always makes me feel unclean.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-21 17:14:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The robot whore spat out a canned response, I'm so surprised!
Senator_Clinton.at.clinton.senate.gov
to me
More options 5:11 pm (1 minute ago)
Dear Mr. Papadopoulopoulos:
Thank you for writing to share with me your concerns regarding internet neutrality. As you may know, I support net neutrality. The open architecture of the Internet has been the critical element that has made it the most revolutionary communications medium since the advent of the television.
Each day on the Internet, views are discussed and debated in an open forum without fear of censorship or reprisal. The Internet as we know it does not discriminate among its users. It does not decide who can enter its marketplace and it does not pick which views can be heard and which ones silenced. It is the embodiment of the fundamental democratic principles upon which our nation has thrived for hundreds of years.
I have always, and will continue to, strongly and unequivocally support these principles. As I have worked throughout my Senate career to make broadband access readily available throughout New York State and our nation, I believe that maintaining an open Internet coupled with more broadband access is necessary if we are to meet the promise and the potential of the Internet to disseminate ideas and information, enhance learning, education and business opportunities for all Americans and improve and uplift our citizenry.
We must embrace an open and non-discriminatory framework for the Internet of the 21 st century. Therefore, it is my intention to be an original cosponsor of the net neutrality legislation proposed by Senators Dorgan and Snowe to ensure that open, unimpaired and unencumbered Internet access for both its users and content providers is preserved as Congress debates the overhaul of our nation's telecommunications laws.
Thank you again for writing about this issue that is important to me and to so many of my constituents. Please be assured that I will fight any efforts that would fundamentally alter the inherently democratic structure of the Internet. Updates on this and many other important issues being discussed before the United States Senate, can be found on my website http://clinton.senate.gov.
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Submitted by Snowynorth (user info) at 2006-06-21 17:00:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't live in America, however I have been following the story. I'm gonna have a to say I agree with you about net neutrality but it just isn't gonna happen. Here's the problem, at least as far as I understand it so correct me if I'm wrong. Pretty much the net needs a whole new infrastructure of fiber optic lines etc, etc in order to meet the continuing demand for bandwidth from consumers. At the moment the lines are all owned and maintained by the telecommunications companies and they sure as shit won't pay for the upgrades... so regardless to keep the internet up and running at a pace that we've become acustom to we're gonna have to pay for it somehow...
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2006-06-21 15:56:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:05:25 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:01:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
uh... does this only affect my American cousins?
===
No, your american nephews will probably feel the pinch too.
---
<sigh> i'll leave it be
Submitted by Psmith (user info) at 2006-06-21 15:13:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is very important.
Your delivery is a bit preachy and melodramatic but I agree with you 100%.
Submitted by Bushy (user info) at 2006-06-21 15:02:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you sure do make for interesting reading. interesting, like going to the crazy house interesting.
i always read your shit. more often than not i laugh, sometimes i get angry at your rampant stupidity, sometimes i feel pity for you.
This time, though, you picked a serious issue that does need some action. Unfortunately you alienated a shitload of readers straight away in the same way you do every time. First, you take this horrible condescending tone. "I know this, its so obvious, why can't you people see the truth" then you back it up with brilliant exageration, both of its effects and causes. Then, like a tidal wave of divisiveness you make your post so horribly US-centric.
Quick news flash for you peter parker, the internet is international and ubersite has many members from many countries.
I'm for a free and open internet, uncensored. I think the market reality of this change is terribly complex, but in my opinion will end up like cable TV. You buy a basic package, then if you want fullscreen streaming video highlights from the world cup you have to pay extra. I don't like that idea. There are a thousand other ways it could pan out, but i think we're all agreed that neutrality is a better option. i also think that the market wouldn't stand for that sort of heavy handed internet monitoring/resitriction, and a competitor would pop up quite quickly. I have no idea what that competitor would take the form of, but thats how the market works.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-21 14:28:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This has been all over the internet, so you're not really a journalist or anyone terribly innovative... but hey, I've already emailed my reps.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-21 14:26:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The entity which organises net domains (.co.uk .us .org etc) is american, it recently refused permission for a .xxx domain on moral grounds. Because they think porn is morally wrong, I'm substantially more concerned about that than I am about this.
You want to fight for your country back?
Pay your taxes then. Yo can't want your country bakc and refuse to pay your taxes (well you can but I'm not going to take you seriously) If I were you I'd get involved in movements to declare states as seperate countries independant of the USA. Cos the USA is never going to be what you want it to be, those guys who wrote the constitution fucked up, and it could only ever have led to this.
Seriously the noises you make about where your taxes are spent and not having any real say in who runs the US are exactly the same noises as led to the declaration of independance.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-06-21 14:13:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If america fucks around with the net too much, other countries will just seperate, no longer a world wide web but a different network, and as soon as, say, germany, sets up on its own, pretty much all of europe and the majority of the rest of the world would join it.
It would provide a great opportunity for countries like China to stop internet access with the outside world though.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-21 14:12:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:55:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
It was supposed to be inferred that I meant 'calling for' the hiring of police to arrest protestors... Next time I'll be more specific so you can understand it, how's that.
If I report the news to you, I am a journalist. That's the definition of a journalist, someone who reports the news.
You're a childish motherfucker, you know that? Of all the things you could be debating with me right now, you choose to jump in on the 'shut up' wagon.
------------------
He wasn't calling for the police to come and arrest you, it is nothing like that, once again it is the fucking internet, there are posts on here about raping handicapped kids, it is far from serious. If you want a serious conversation lose your messianic complex.
You aren't reporting shit to me. And a journalist normally gets paid. You are a blogger without a blog.
I am childish? Boo-hoo telling me to shut up is like asking that reporters get arrested, I am a misunderstood journalist.
I didn't jump on a "shut up" bandwagon I said you were acting like a spastic idiot, so much so that I got upset that I could ever share the same opinion on anything with you.
Good luck with four most heated posts "Dr. of Journalism" ETS.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-21 14:11:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
anyone here any good with photoshop, my resident helper is busy today and I'm in search of some assistance
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 14:08:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
*claps*
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-21 14:06:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*withholds multiple comments*
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 14:05:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think I'm going to start habitually wearing a bow tie. The retard community just seems so accepting.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 14:04:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I've actually played guitar for a room full of retards before. It was awesome!
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:58:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
yeah I could see a little of myself in the guy wearing the suit and trucker's cap with the monster sideburns
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:56:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:53:31 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:44:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
I saw this and thought of uber
http://videosift.com/story.php?id=3260
Wonder why.
==================
Because we're all good dancers?
===
The semi-bald guy in the light blue shirt stole my moves.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:55:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:48:38 (#)
Ranking: -2
If it is a given why did you liken "telling you to shut up" to hiring police to arrest reporters.
Get a grip on reality.
1- He told you to "shut up" (probably because he has heard this), not arrest you.
2- You are some jackass on the internet not a journalist reporting the news.
--------------------------
It was supposed to be inferred that I meant 'calling for' the hiring of police to arrest protestors... Next time I'll be more specific so you can understand it, how's that.
If I report the news to you, I am a journalist. That's the definition of a journalist, someone who reports the news.
You're a childish motherfucker, you know that? Of all the things you could be debating with me right now, you choose to jump in on the 'shut up' wagon.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:53:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:44:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
I saw this and thought of uber
http://videosift.com/story.php?id=3260
Wonder why.
==================
Because we're all good dancers?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:51:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:39:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
How and why would you assume such a thing as 'everyone who cares already knows about this'? Sure, a lot of people already know about it, but should that prevent us from trying to get people to take action against it? No it shouldn't. It's important for everyone who uses and values a free internet as a medium of free speech and freedom of information.
-----------------------------------------
No go ahead and tell people, good for you. But don't freak out like a raving lunatic when people tell you so shut up and compare it to a journalist getting locked up.
See this is where you could use alters for good, instead of +2 your own posts, -2 people who don't agree with you, and having conversations with yourself online.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:50:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:44:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
I saw this and thought of uber
http://videosift.com/story.php?id=3260
Wonder why.
-----------------
I'd KILL for that gig!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:48:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:00:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Telling me to 'shut up' when I'm giving you a valid news story, albeit opinion piece, on an event that could CHANGE YOUR LIFE, is like hiring the police to round up all journalists and detain them for printing the news.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:39:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
It's a GIVEN he isn't going to MAKE ME shut up. The fact that YOU don't know that already makes me think YOU are a tard.
---------------------------
If it is a given why did you liken "telling you to shut up" to hiring police to arrest reporters.
Get a grip on reality.
1- He told you to "shut up" (probably because he has heard this), not arrest you.
2- You are some jackass on the internet not a journalist reporting the news.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:47:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:26:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
I didn't read the article, I'm a very busy man, but does this reach beyond the DSL service providers?
As in Comcast or the companys that provide DSS?
---------------
Excuse me, I misinterpreted your question before.
Comcast is actually on the side of Verizon and AT&T on this. I'm not sure about DSS services. I'm sure there is an exception for it, but don't know for sure.
This will affect all commercial ISPs. Effectively everyone that uses the internet will feel the effects either on their bill or on their service.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:44:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I saw this and thought of uber
http://videosift.com/story.php?id=3260
Wonder why.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:39:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:22:12 (#)
Ranking: 0
Hahaha!!!!
I can't believe I agreed with you.
This is the fucking interweb, saying shut-up doesn't mean he is silencing you, -2's don't hurt you, and most Americans know about this already (well most who would care).
This is why people think you are a tard.
--------------------
I knew it was only a matter of time before you turned back into a dick.
It's a GIVEN he isn't going to MAKE ME shut up. The fact that YOU don't know that already makes me think YOU are a tard.
How and why would you assume such a thing as 'everyone who cares already knows about this'? Sure, a lot of people already know about it, but should that prevent us from trying to get people to take action against it? No it shouldn't. It's important for everyone who uses and values a free internet as a medium of free speech and freedom of information.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:35:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:26:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
I didn't read the article, I'm a very busy man, but does this reach beyond the DSL service providers?
As in Comcast or the companys that provide DSS?
-----------------
It's ALL the internet.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:26:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I didn't read the article, I'm a very busy man, but does this reach beyond the DSL service providers?
As in Comcast or the companys that provide DSS?
Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:22:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The issue is not whether or not I should heed your word, it's that you have no credibility, you crazy fuck.
Telling people to wake up reeks of condescension.Face it, you know nothing. You read what's written on the internet, connect the dots how you see fit and then type away at your little keyboard with your little smirk.
Your pretentious attempts at winning over the public and 'teaching' them something are sadly ineffectual. Well, not sad for us, sad for you.
You're opinions are sickeningly Cindy Sheehan-esque. That fact alone should make you want to make your own set of changes.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:22:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:00:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Telling me to 'shut up' when I'm giving you a valid news story, albeit opinion piece, on an event that could CHANGE YOUR LIFE, is like hiring the police to round up all journalists and detain them for printing the news.
---------------------------
Hahaha!!!!
I can't believe I agreed with you.
This is the fucking interweb, saying shut-up doesn't mean he is silencing you, -2's don't hurt you, and most Americans know about this already (well most who would care).
This is why people think you are a tard.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck tha man! Won't let a nigga use a search engine!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:09:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I forgot to post the link to the bill itself. I always try to do that when talking about this sort of thing, but forgot. I apologise. Here it is if you want to see for yourself, which I thoroughly encourage: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5252rh.txt.pdf
C1ndy: If it happens here in the States, it's probably only a matter of time before it happens there too, or is at least attempted. How are your phone companies operated? Are they private? If so, what are the major companies who own your phone services?
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:05:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:01:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
uh... does this only affect my American cousins?
===
No, your american nephews will probably feel the pinch too.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:05:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:01:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
uh... does this only affect my American cousins?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:00:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:51:56 (#)
Ranking: -2
Seriously, shut the fuck up already, faggot.
---------------
I've never known ANYONE so eager to surrender their rights without a peep as some of you people. (You know who you are.)
Telling me to 'shut up' when I'm giving you a valid news story, albeit opinion piece, on an event that could CHANGE YOUR LIFE, is like hiring the police to round up all journalists and detain them for printing the news.
Some of you should be utterly and completely ashamed of yourselves. If you're not now, you will be when you're hiding in an attic someday with your children while the Army MPs are busting down your door.
You can lead a horse to water, I guess...
I'm not perfect, but at least I'm trying.
Submitted by ubetidid (user info) at 2006-06-21 13:00:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Christ on the cross now I'm even more depressed.
Did the NKoreans launch their test bomb today?
Submitted by MichelleNJ (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:59:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:08:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
veriZon
Submitted by polymorph505 (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:56:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This isn't fascism, it's the result of many years of capitalism coupled with greed.
Still a good post, though I doubt with ETS's name at the top it will get the rating it deserves.
Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:51:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Seriously, shut the fuck up already, faggot.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:50:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:44:04 (#)
Ranking: 2
If that ever got passed, I would move out of the country. That's like... The sort of thing that happens in nightmares.
------------------------
I'd have to admit, my line in the sand came long ago when I found out all the things I know about 9/11. That was the last straw for me, but I'm going to stay here and fight for my country back.
It's slipping into fascism, folks. Please open your eyes.
I don't know how else to say it.
Wake up and help yourselves.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:49:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh wait, I'm already living in that nightmare. I like to call it a 'modem', or '2.5 kbps'.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:47:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:31:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
America, Welcome to China.
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/img/060131-china.gif
---------------------
Case in point right here. Look at those two google searches. What's different about them? My point is this...even if you don't agree with me on certain issues such as 9/11, as Americans, I'm confident you support my right to find information on the subject and NOT to have my voice as a citizen of this country suppressed, right?
Well, right now, if you type in just "9/11" in an American search engine, you get loads of sites, even on the front page, about the theory of a government conspiracy.
You find information like this:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
"On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and "consciously failed" to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General."
This is a FACT. Now, it doesn't mean the government covered it up necessarily, but it is a published, known FACT. The poll happened. The results came in. And there they are.
Now, how else would you know this fact if it wasn't for google? If it wasn't for our ability to search for such things, how would we ever know about this and any number of other things the government MIGHT have an interest in not letting us know?
I think you can understand the level of urgency here, and if you don't, take another look at that Chinese google search and ask yourself questions about governments, corporations, and power.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:44:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If that ever got passed, I would move out of the country. That's like... The sort of thing that happens in nightmares.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:41:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't think it's going to "destroy" anything. The internet very quickly became a tool of capitalism early in its infancy. What I forsee coming out of this are two separate lines of 'net access pricing: the standard internet-by-speed setups (8Mb/s cable lines, etc.), which is already a tiered system and then bandwidth-consumption pricing (xGB/month), determined by the local ISPs. I just don't see it becoming a tool of control and subversion. I'd be interested in seeing the actual wording of the reform proposal itself, so I could make a more educated guess instead of simply speculating.
I'm just making an abstract comparison to cooperative-utilities groups. In my area, American Electric Power (AEP) owns ALL the equipment (transmission lines, substations, etc.). In order to get around monopoly laws, they allow local area groups (co-ops) to rent their lines and substations. They get to sell power and other utilities to the consumer at an inflated price to absorb their rental costs and AEP gets to have the co-op not only pay them, but also places all maintenance concerns on the co-op itself. It's akin to renting a property, never deducting the maintenance costs for the renter and making them take care of every problem that arises. You get a solid payment each month with none of those pesky and costly maintenance problems. Pipe burst? Tough shit. Call a plumber and get your checkbook ready. You got my rent yet?
Submitted by TigerLilly (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:37:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'd much rather send Method dirty letters with naked pictures in it. More fun.
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:35:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"and the availability of our personal conversations to the government as well. It'll be like a one-stop-shop for anyone looking to plug into your phone conversations.
This is fascism, folks. This is healthy capitalism turning slowly to fascism, and I'm sorry, but it you don't see this now, if you don't draw a line in the sand now and say "ENOUGH", their powers are only going to grow while your choices and liberties shrink."
---------------
Ahhhh, theres the ETS we know
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:34:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:33:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
g) Do you live in the good ole US of A??
If you answer to the above question is no then you really dont need to give a flying fuck about any bill in congress becasue Canada KICKS ASS.
--------------
What's that supposed to mean?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:33:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:14:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
Letters sent to Chuck Schumer and that robot whore Hilary Clinton
----------------
Ahhh Hilary...the OTHER white meat.
Different side of the same coin.
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:33:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
g) Do you live in the good ole US of A??
If you answer to the above question is no then you really dont need to give a flying fuck about any bill in congress becasue Canada KICKS ASS.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:31:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
America, Welcome to China.
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/img/060131-china.gif
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:29:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:13:46 (#)
Ranking: 1
As relatively innocuous as this post may be, I still think the hate posse will push it to heated.
You're turning into quite the alarmist, Brad.
----------------
I don't mean to be an alarmist, Jeremy. Really, I don't. I just see a lot of cause for alarm these days.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:27:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:24:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
You're a bit fucking late on this issue, here is a list of issues you probably know absolutely nothing about that you should research on wikipedia sometime this week so you can forge an uninformed, shallow opinion on FRESH issues:
North Korea test launching intercontintal ballistic missiles/US missile defense system (Which you'll no doubt blame on, I don't know, Iraq war, you'll tie it in somehow, maybe complain about the korean war? I don't know, I'm sure it'll be shit)
Pirate bay
Hafium bombs
new progress on stem cell research
Don't even bother posting, your opinion is static, it's the anti-US, pro "do the right thing" on every issue. You're fucking chalk, and you only think what you're told to think, so stfu.
-------------------------
I've commented and posted on this issue before. I've been following it loosely a while now, but I just heard on NPR this morning that the bill is in the House. That's why I'm posting this now before it's too late.
Submitted by hour_man (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:26:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I was interested
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:24:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You're a bit fucking late on this issue, here is a list of issues you probably know absolutely nothing about that you should research on wikipedia sometime this week so you can forge an uninformed, shallow opinion on FRESH issues:
North Korea test launching intercontintal ballistic missiles/US missile defense system (Which you'll no doubt blame on, I don't know, Iraq war, you'll tie it in somehow, maybe complain about the korean war? I don't know, I'm sure it'll be shit)
Pirate bay
Hafium bombs
new progress on stem cell research
Don't even bother posting, your opinion is static, it's the anti-US, pro "do the right thing" on every issue. You're fucking chalk, and you only think what you're told to think, so stfu.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:21:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:10:34 (#)
Ranking: 2
I would have no problem if they wanted to charge you more for downloading more, it is more than that.
They want to set it up so it takes 5 minutes (or more money) to get to say google, but it is quicker (and cheaper) to get to AT&T's version of google.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:17:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:04:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually ETS one of the reasons they want that law is because so many people are using broadband for things like file sharing they aren't making a profit on there bandwidth.
I mean I can't fault a company for wanting to make money. Otherwise they would just shut the thing down and then we all lose.
But I might be wrong.
----------------------
They're already making their billions, dude. This is a monopolistic move, plain and simple. It's going to destroy the internet we know.
I'm not being alarmist here, I'm being practical. When you've got even Microsoft and Google fighting against it, it's at least worth looking into for yourself, wouldn't you agree?
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:17:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This means that people will no longer be going to myspace and downloading free music from independent artists unless they're willing to charge for it
---------
no more more shitty emo music on the Internet?
That seals the deal - I SUPPORT this legislation, and urge you all to let your Congressman know about it.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:14:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Letters sent to Chuck Schumer and that robot whore Hilary Clinton
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:13:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
As relatively innocuous as this post may be, I still think the hate posse will push it to heated.
You're turning into quite the alarmist, Brad.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:13:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
While I agree that this particular law is not neccessarily the fix I want, I think there is a problem with this. They have to make money from hosting the internet or we all lose because we don't get access. I called and wrote an email saying I didn't support this particular reform, but I felt that reform was needed.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:10:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:04:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually ETS one of the reasons they want that law is because so many people are using broadband for things like file sharing they aren't making a profit on there bandwidth.
I mean I can't fault a company for wanting to make money. Otherwise they would just shut the thing down and then we all lose.
But I might be wrong.
----------------------
I would have no problem if they wanted to charge you more for downloading more, it is more than that.
They want to set it up so it takes 5 minutes (or more money) to get to say google, but it is quicker (and cheaper) to get to AT&T's version of google.
I fucking hate it when I agree with ETS. Makes me think I have been taking crazy pills.
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:08:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
veriZon
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:05:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Can you ever post anything nonpolitical?
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-06-21 12:04:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually ETS one of the reasons they want that law is because so many people are using broadband for things like file sharing they aren't making a profit on there bandwidth.
I mean I can't fault a company for wanting to make money. Otherwise they would just shut the thing down and then we all lose.
But I might be wrong.