Non Partison Cause Hoping You Will Support

Search

Lester Rodney Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,635
Tokens
http://savetheinternet.com

Don't know how many of you guys know about net neutrality and how the congress and big telecoms are trying to take it away, but it's somthing that you should be aware of and get behind whether you're right or left it truly is a non partison cause:


What is this about?
This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.
But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful network neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.
What is network neutrality?
Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.
Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.
Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
What's at stake?
Decisions being made now will shape the future of the Internet for a generation. Before long, all media — TV, phone and the Web — will come to your home via the same broadband connection. The dispute over Net Neutrality is about who'll control access to new and emerging technologies.
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.
What's happening in Congress?
The telephone and cable companies are filling up congressional campaign coffers and hiring high-priced lobbyists. They've set up "Astroturf" groups like "Hands Off the Internet" to confuse the issue and give the appearance of grassroots support.
Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. The primary bill in the House is called the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006" and is sponsored by Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas), Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Rep. Charles Pickering (R-Miss.) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.).
The current version of the COPE Act includes watered-down Net Neutrality provisions that are essentially meaningless. An amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which would have instituted real Net Neutrality requirements, was defeated in committee after intense industry lobbying against it.
The COPE Act is expected to be voted on by the full House in the second week of May. Congressman Markey is preparing to introduce his amendment on the floor so that every member is on the record. No member of Congress can in good conscience vote against Internet freedom and with the telecom cartel.
The Senate is moving more deliberately on the issue. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has introduced the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006, which would ensure Net Neutrality. And Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (R-N.D.) are expected to introduce a bipartisan amendment supporting Net Neutrality when the Senate takes up its own rewrite of the Telecommunications Act later this year.
Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations?
No. Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly — not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.
But Net Neutrality doesn't just matter to business owners. If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.
Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the "fast lane."
Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?
No. So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like.
  • In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
  • In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.
  • Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.
  • In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.
Won't more regulations harm the free Internet? Shouldn't we just let the market decide?
Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.
Either we make rules that ensure an even playing field for everyone, or we have rules that hold the Internet captive to the whims of a few big companies. The Internet has thrived because revolutionary ideas like blogs, Wikipedia or Google could start on a shoestring and attract huge audiences. Without Net Neutrality, the pipeline owners will choose the winners and losers on the Web.
And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there's nowhere else for consumers to turn. The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband market. Only 53 percent of Americans have a choice between cable and DSL at home. Everyone else has only one choice or no broadband options at all. That's not what a truly free market looks like.
Who's part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition?
The SavetheInternet.com coalition is made up of dozens of groups from across the political spectrum that are concerned about maintaining a free and open Internet. No corporation or political party is funding our efforts. We simply agree to a statement of principles in support of Internet freedom.
The coalition is being coordinated by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization focused on media reform and Internet policy issues. Please complete this brief survey if your group would like to join this broad, bipartisan effort to save the Internet.
Who else supports Net Neutrality?
The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.
Editorial boards at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News and Christian Science Monitor all have urged congress to save the Internet.
What can I do to help?
Sign the SavetheInternet.com petition.
Call your representative today and demand that Net Neutrality be protected.
Encourage groups you're part of to please join the SavetheInternet.com Coalition.
Show your support for Internet freedom on your Web site or blog. Tell your friends about this crucial issue before it's too late.
 

Lester Rodney Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,635
Tokens
Thanks Cussin these are issues that affect our lives on the medium that we all know and love. These are not, I repeat are not partison issues. They are issues that everyone on this board should look into, before more of your rights are whitled down.

:thumbsup2:
 

Living...vicariously through myself.
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
8,456
Tokens
Fidel said:
Thanks Cussin these are issues that affect our lives on the medium that we all know and love. These are not, I repeat are not partison issues. They are issues that everyone on this board should look into, before more of your rights are whitled down.

:thumbsup2:

The slant of the author clearly biased but youre right...this has the potential to be bad.The bill itself seems to addess some of the issues by saying the FCC will address them after the bill is passed.Perhaps they act act accordingly but who knows?

While it is true that companies early on were responsible for the broadband lines existence and perhaps compensation is only right for their usage,holding customers hostage is not good business or good for freedom of choice.

I dont see Markeys defeated bill amendment as the end all and be all of the "internet as we know it",provided the FCC and those in charge actually do whats right (which once again given the atmosphere in Wash. is always a big question mark).Corruption and incompetence in Washington is truly non-partisian.
 

Lester Rodney Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,635
Tokens
BASEHEAD said:
The slant of the author clearly biased but youre right...this has the potential to be bad.The bill itself seems to addess some of the issues by saying the FCC will address them after the bill is passed.Perhaps they act act accordingly but who knows?

While it is true that companies early on were responsible for the broadband lines existence and perhaps compensation is only right for their usage,holding customers hostage is not good business or good for freedom of choice.

I dont see Markeys defeated bill amendment as the end all and be all of the "internet as we know it",provided the FCC and those in charge actually do whats right (which once again given the atmosphere in Wash. is always a big question mark).Corruption and incompetence in Washington is truly non-partisian.

Thanks for looking at the information, I hope you do somthing about it, instead of bitching later that you can't get on, or start a site that can be widely read. Regardless of what slant, it is a good idea period. I thought the endorsement by Gun Owners of America would sway you enormeously.
 

Living...vicariously through myself.
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
8,456
Tokens
Fidel said:
Thanks for looking at the information, I hope you do somthing about it, instead of bitching later that you can't get on, or start a site that can be widely read. Regardless of what slant, it is a good idea period. I thought the endorsement by Gun Owners of America would sway you enormeously.

Gun Owners of America?
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
BASEHEAD said:
While it is true that companies early on were responsible for the broadband lines existence and perhaps compensation is only right for their usage,holding customers hostage is not good business or good for freedom of choice.

I think this fact alone will keep this from ever becoming too much of an issue. At any given time, a consumer can flip internet providers in a matter of a few hours, at worst, really. I can't see it being in their best interest to block access for users ... so, that in mind, I'm not overly interested in seeing more regulation of the internet. IMO, the fact that the internet provides us so much freedom from gov't oversight (relative to other mediums, that is) is a good thing. I'd rather keep it this way.

Also, not sure how these rules by Congress or the FCC could or would affect Canadian internet providers (like the examples above) ... maybe someone could enlighten me?
 

Lester Rodney Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,635
Tokens
Not when just a few conglomerates own the networks:


What's at stake?
Decisions being made now will shape the future of the Internet for a generation. Before long, all media — TV, phone and the Web — will come to your home via the same broadband connection. The dispute over Net Neutrality is about who'll control access to new and emerging technologies.
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu. The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
The big boys want the main net highways.
The Gov. for tax and regulation and the Corporates so they can derive competitive advantage, and both of them so they can restrict the free flow of information.

Its bound to happen eventually...in the interests of "fairness and security".

Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cos it won't last.

The net has been the closest thing to a truly free and open market for decades, so it was doomed from the start.
 

Lester Rodney Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,635
Tokens
xpanda said:
Article taking the opposite view, advocating full de-regulation of the internet:

http://www.mises.org/story/2139

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics, and the Wall Street Journal

arnold_poster.jpg


Nice article, what there was nothing from Neo-Nazi weekly?
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
In what way would the Mises Institute resemble neo-Nazism, in your opinion?

Other than the fact that you've pegged me as a fascist and I'm the one who posted the article ..

Did you even read the article? It's about full privatisation of the internet, which, if you knew anything at all about actual Nazism, is precisely the opposite of what Hitler or folks like him would advocate ...
 

Lester Rodney Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,635
Tokens
I read it, and I wasn't convinced you're a nazi till now. Austrian school of Liberatarian Political Therory. Gee, why would I think that?
:monsters-
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
xpanda said:
In what way would the Mises Institute resemble neo-Nazism, in your opinion?

Other than the fact that you've pegged me as a fascist and I'm the one who posted the article ..

Did you even read the article? It's about full privatisation of the internet, which, if you knew anything at all about actual Nazism, is precisely the opposite of what Hitler or folks like him would advocate ...

:howdy: I read it, before you posted it even. It's a paper by a grad student. It's a good read and has nothing to do with neo-Nazism. I do believe the author is anti-state invervention/regulation, and I tend to agree with him. Fidel come on lighten up dude.
 

Lester Rodney Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,635
Tokens
The Wall Street Journal is a regular bastion of liberalism also, I'm sorry I even brought t up, looks like and is a no brainer....Just didn't take in consideration I'd get resistance!

:nohead: :nohead: :nohead:
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Fidel said:
I read it, and I wasn't convinced you're a nazi till now. Austrian school of Liberatarian Political Therory. Gee, why would I think that?

I have no idea why you would think that. Clearly you know nothing about fascism nor Libertarian political theory.

I'd love to see you outline the similarities, though. Should make for a good giggle or two.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,178
Tokens
I Need to ponder about this issue for a moment.

:ughhh: :ughhh: :ohno: :nuts: :sadbb: :coke:


:dancefool :dancefool :dancefool :dancefool :dancefool
 

Lester Rodney Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,635
Tokens
Yea, who needs regulation of the Internet let the free market take care of it. That seemed to work well with energy and Enron. Again this will do nothing but give total control to Mega telecom opperators, it really is a no brainer. Turn on the cable networks if thats not an example of the corporations in bed with the gov. I don't know what is. Can't wait till we get the diverse choice that we get there.

Another provision of the bill would cut back the obligation of cable TV companies to devote channels to public access and fund the facilities to run them.
I'm sure you're for that also...as I say why do want a few corporations controling the content of the net? Maybe you do, I apologize for the Nazi crack, but you most certainly are a fascist.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,120,425
Messages
13,581,549
Members
100,981
Latest member
eaniston39
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com