| Author |
Topic: Save the internet |
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
|
|
 |
Wiz Feinberg
From:
Mid-Michigan, USA
|
Posted 11 May 2006 7:09 am |
|
Private citizens and Netizens are basically powerless to stop this from happening. The companies involved are much too powerful to be stopped by any coalition. It's like a lamb on a railroad track bleating at the train that's about to obliterate it. You can only hope that your ISP is among the group that pays for faster service, and that they allow all of their customers to take advantage without paying extra for the higher speed that you are already getting, when this eventually goes into effect. This will mainly effect broadband customers, not dialup, since dialup customers are way too slow-speed to have much effect on network bandwidth anymore.
As they said in Zero Wing, "All your base are belong to us!"
------------------
Bob "Wiz" Feinberg
Moderator of the SGF Computers Forum
Visit my Wiztunes Steel Guitar website at: http://www.wiztunes.com/
or my computer troubleshooting website: Wizcrafts Computer Services,
or my Webmaster Services webpage.
Learn about current computer virus and security threats here.
Read Wiz's Blog for security news and update notices
[This message was edited by Wiz Feinberg on 11 May 2006 at 08:09 AM.] |
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 11 May 2006 7:46 am
|
|
Wiz,
Actually we can can stop it at this point. If the congressmen that have been paid off by the cable companies think that they might lose any votes by supporting this road block on the net they will switch over.
The weird part to me is how under the radar this legislation is. It could set the U.S. back years and will absolutely be a major pain in the ass for any forum user. Rather than have the cable/phone companies use service and inovation to increase profits they find it cheaper to buy legislation to destroy compitition. When the current administration first came into power they headed straight to the FCC to stop electric companies from laying fiber optic cable with every new power line. They used some very dubious regulations to consolidate there monopoly. This is the opposite of free market.
------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website
|
|
|
|
Wiz Feinberg
From:
Mid-Michigan, USA
|
Posted 11 May 2006 8:46 am
|
|
| I hope you're right Bob. |
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 11 May 2006 11:20 am
|
|
I have to agree with Wiz, $$$ speaks and the "biggies" have the war chest.
|
|
|
|
Chip Fossa
From:
Monson, MA, USA (deceased)
|
Posted 11 May 2006 7:18 pm
|
|
I signed up. For what it's worth.
I know this will sound political, but we have a serious problem in this country with our form of what we call democracy - CHECKS & BALANCES.
As far as I can see, it is just about completely eroded.
Believe me, I worry a whole lot more about this inept, corrupt, secretive, uncaring, and dispicable government [both REP & DEM] than any real or imaginary enemies!
OK - sorry for getting political, but sometimes you just gotta let it out.
Thanks Bob H and Wiz. You fellas definitely have a pulse on the REAL ongoings of the internet [and probably the world at large, too] |
|
|
|
Jeff Agnew
From:
Dallas, TX
|
Posted 12 May 2006 5:01 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| Private citizens and Netizens are basically powerless to stop this from happening. |
Only if we stand back and do nothing. Write or fax your elected representatives and complain. This is a huge issue for our industry.
The Internet as we know it today would not exist had it not been built upon the principle of neutrality.
| Quote: |
| You can only hope that your ISP is among the group that pays for faster service |
If only it were that easy. The problem is that the Internet is packet-switched, not circuit-switched. Once a packet gets beyond your ISP all bets are off. A small example:
Some ISPs currently degrade VoIP packets (like Skype, Vonage, etc.) because these free or low-cost offerings compete with their own voice services. So let's say I use Skype to call you. My ISP doesn't care about Skype and passes the packets without delay. However, your ISP is a telco that wants to promote their own voice product. They configure their routers to give priority to their own app's voice packets or, worse, downgrade the priority for Skype packets. Result: our conversation suffers from latency, aliasing, or dropped calls. We don't blame the network -- we blame the crappy Skype product. Or so we believe.
It's already happening today and it's about to get a lot worse. |
|
|
|
Dave Boothroyd
From:
Staffordshire Moorlands
|
Posted 14 May 2006 12:54 am
|
|
I read recently that about half of the biggest economies on the planet are private companies, not Nations.
Democracy?
When do I get to vote for the Managing Director of Microsoft?
Cheers
Dave |
|
|
|
Mark van Allen
From:
Watkinsville, Ga. USA
|
Posted 14 May 2006 8:58 am
|
|
The system is still chugging along, it's just that the checks carry far more weight... 
A lot of these problems would be lessened or alleviated if our "elected representatives" actually went back to representing the electorate. |
|
|
|
Chip Fossa
From:
Monson, MA, USA (deceased)
|
Posted 14 May 2006 11:37 am
|
|
| Right-on Mark. |
|
|
|
Wiz Feinberg
From:
Mid-Michigan, USA
|
Posted 19 May 2006 10:56 am
|
|
May 17, 2006
34 Hardware firms oppose Net neutrality laws
The political debate in Washington over the concept known as Net neutrality just became a lot more complicated.
Some of the largest hardware makers in the world, including 3M, Cisco Systems, Corning and Qualcomm, sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday firmly opposing new laws mandating Net neutrality--the concept that broadband providers must never favor some Web sites or Internet services over others.
That view directly conflicts with what many software and Internet companies have been saying for the last few months. Led by Amazon.com, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, those companies have been spending millions of dollars to lobby for stiff new laws prohibiting broadband providers from rolling out two-tier networks.
"It is premature to attempt to enact some sort of network neutrality principles into law now," says the letter, which was signed by 34 companies and sent to House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. "Legislating in the absence of real understanding of the issue risks both solving the wrong problem and hobbling the rapidly developing new technologies and business models of the Internet with rigid, potentially stultifying rules."
The letter even goes so far as to applaud a committee vote in the House of Representatives on April 26, in which Net neutrality proponents--largely Democrats--lost by a wide margin. "We are pleased that the committee rejected attempts to add so-called 'network neutrality' provisions to the bill," it says.
Even though many of the letter's signers are suppliers to telecommunications companies, it still is likely to help stall efforts to advance Net neutrality--which a Democratic senator said last week would be debated in the Senate.
< snip >[This message was edited by Wiz Feinberg on 19 May 2006 at 11:58 AM.] |
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 21 May 2006 4:20 am
|
|
Some news just came in:
quote:
In the last 72 hours, we have seen amazing momentum in our fight to save the Internet.
A new bipartisan group of House members joined our cause. The Christian Coalition joined, too. The Silicon Valley-based San Jose Mercury News came out in support of Net Neutrality. A group of leading artists and musicians joined our SavetheInternet.com Coalition. And our coalition's petition to Congress passed 700,000 signatures.
The smoke screen being sent up by the industry basicly says that they already control speed of certain content so that it must be legal and that the old drug company mantra of if they are not allowed to completely control the market and make as much money as possible than there will be no innovation.
------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website
|
|
|
|
Curt Langston
|
Posted 24 May 2006 9:06 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| Believe me, I worry a whole lot more about this inept, corrupt, secretive, uncaring, and dispicable government [both REP & DEM] than any real or imaginary enemies! |
Indeed Chip. I worry as well.
1984
Good point. |
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 26 May 2006 9:47 am
|
|
Just in:
quote:
Thanks to your thousands of calls and letters, we took a major step forward this week in the fight for Internet freedom.
A bipartisan majority on the House Judiciary Committee yesterday passed the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act" -- a good bill that would use antitrust law to protect Network Neutrality. Special thanks to those of you who called the key members who cast the deciding votes.
The question before us is simple: Will the Internet remain in the hands of users and innovators? Or will a handful of telephone and cable companies determine which Web sites you see and which you don't? Yesterday's vote -- a milestone for our movement -- would have been unthinkable just three weeks ago. But we've shown once again that organized people can defeat powerful corporations.
Our opponents spent untold millions on high-priced lobbyists, slick ad campaigns and fake grassroots groups. But the voices of hundreds of thousands of citizens -- your voices -- made the difference.
The SavetheInternet.com Coalition led by Free Press now boasts nearly 700 groups that span the political spectrum, including MoveOn.org, the Christian Coalition, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Gun Owners of America, Consumers Union, and the American Library Association. Thousands of blogs have taken up our cause. Yesterday, the coalition's petition drive surpassed 750,000 signatures.
There is more work to be done. The cable companies are very very rich, powerful tricky little rascals. They are doing everything possible to make the internet there private cash cow.
Click on this:
www.savetheinternet.com/
to stay updated and keep up the good fight.
------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website
|
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 26 May 2006 6:40 pm
|
|
It looks like we may win this one if we keep at it !
www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=329
Moveon.org and the Christian Coalition are getting together and buying a full page ad in the NY Times.
------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website
[This message was edited by Bob Hoffnar on 26 May 2006 at 07:41 PM.] |
|
|
|
Charlie McDonald
From:
out of the blue
|
Posted 27 May 2006 4:20 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| ... "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act" -- a good bill that would use antitrust law to protect Network Neutrality. |
It is true that checks and balances have eroded, and that separation of powers have seriously blurred over the years.
We can support congressmen who support liberty, but it is an executive function to administer laws that already exist.
"It can't happen here."
Where have I heard that before...? |
|
|
|
Pat Kelly
From:
Wentworthville, New South Wales, Australia
|
Posted 27 May 2006 10:22 am
|
|
Yes Charlie:
| Quote: |
| It is true that checks and balances have eroded, |
but as Marc pointed out above, the checks they're interested in get deposited into campaign fund accounts (and other less visible accounts)
| Quote: |
| it's just that the checks carry far more weight... |
.
I've noted elsewhere that the treaties signed with various countries (including this one) setting up free trade agreeements, may have some application in this matter. I'll write a letter or two on this end to see if the possum can be stirred. Interested to see what the opinion is on this in The States.
Pat |
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 27 May 2006 10:56 pm
|
|
Pat,
You have an interesting idea. Absolutely follow up on it and keep us posted. If you come up with something I may be able to forward it to the right people in the FCC directly.
Thanks,
------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website
|
|
|
|
Charlie McDonald
From:
out of the blue
|
Posted 28 May 2006 10:56 am
|
|
Ah, Pat, I understand 'checks' and 'balances' better now.  |
|
|
|
Pat Kelly
From:
Wentworthville, New South Wales, Australia
|
Posted 28 May 2006 2:54 pm
|
|
This is a government released plain language guide to the Free Trade Agreement as it effects telecommunications. There are several references to non-discriminatory provision of services. Your people will be better able to evaluate the usefulness of this approach.
Rather than clog up this thread, I will directly e-mail any other snippets.
Pat[This message was edited by Pat Kelly on 28 May 2006 at 03:55 PM.] [This message was edited by Pat Kelly on 28 May 2006 at 04:01 PM.] |
|
|
|
