A Must Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8
Then pick up you banners here:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Put them on your web sites.
The Threat is REAL.
Printable View
A Must Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8
Then pick up you banners here:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Put them on your web sites.
The Threat is REAL.
Unfortunately it would be worse for the Internet to become a regulated entity, which is what the nice sounding "Net Neutrality" legislation does.
I find it amazing that people who find President Bush and his appointees so horrible, but simultaneously use their other hand to wish more regulatory authority to the Federal Communications Commission... the exact same people they villainize.
Allowing the Feds to decide what is fair and proper distribution of Internet channels, menas that they can decide what is proper, whether it is obsene, or protected speech.
Google and all those other companies for "Net Neutrality" are exactly like Phillip Morris and tobacco companies who welcome government cigarette laws which ultimately just strengthen their hand in their industry preventing upstarts and new competitors... (an effect of no cigarette advertising on television or other areas).
So not only is it "corporate welfare" but it will also make the landscape of the Internet ultimately more hostile to innovation and businesses like adult. Great "save."
Steve
So that savetheinternet.com site is really a ruse to fool us into wanting "net neutrality" which is really FOR big business control not AGAINST it?
So in actuality the "savetheinternet" campaign really wants to regulate the internet?
You don't think that Google and Yahoo are not "Big Business" ? Look at Google's stock price. Look at Yahoo and Microsoft's army of lobbyists.
That's one aspect of this Net Neutrality debate which I think is totally phony.
Net Neutrality gives the FCC authority to force ISPs carry everything. Because in theory... and just in theory... someone like Verizon might say to Google, "hey we'll include you on our network, but you will need to pay us to carry it." Obviously Google would not want that, hence the lobbying blitz, and in an ingenious move, they got moveon.org on their bandwagon to turn this into a consumer protection issue.
After all, who would be against access to the Internet? (Hey, who would be against molesting children for that matter?)
Well, what the hand giveth, the hand can certainly take away. The FCC practices this contantly with television channels, Howard Stern on the radio, etc. Net Neutrality means that the Internet now is essentially a public airwave. That bill also does things like require high speed internet to be offered in rural areas, much like telephone companies have to provide in rural areas of the United States.
What does that mean? The Internet is a public good. So, is porn good for the public? That would certainly be an appropriate question in a post "Net Neutral" world. That is because the FCC will be defining what exactly "neutral" should be. And maybe we will see future innovations, like Voice over IP.... if it serves the purposes of the currently existing status quo.
Steve :scissors:
actually traffic prioritization is a reality.
it's being done with VoIP
And it's being done with bittorrent, I think Bell Sympatico throttles torrents and as do other ISPs
Event he founder of the Internet has come against what ATT has proposed.
Google pays for their pipes (hosting) you pay for your internet connection, there's no need to pay again because the dopes at ATT want more money and don't want to be a "dumb pipe"
Cingular Wireless, owned by ATT & BellSouth, tacks on some interesting charges to the gills, some of which are not government mandated and have been pointed out to be rather elective, with some people saying they refuse to pay them and the company going with it ... so should these bogus charges not be challenged just because we have to do everything possible to keep the FCC out of our hair?
I prefer this analogy than the "Phillip Morris" one:
http://www.freepress.net/news/16865
Because people smoking kills.
#1 - Competition is the solution, not slodgy government oversight.Quote:
Originally Posted by jIgG
In fact, I would suggest that Net Neutrality will only mean additional fees and taxes and regulatory costs ultimately passed on to the end user.... because in a regulatory environment they can. Look at your phone bill now.... look at the tax you pay for rural access to telephone service. Look at the use fees on your cable bill. etc. etc. etc. Here in Austin, the government "protection" boards that franchise our cable service has made it so that I am years away from enjoying cable TV service offered by phone companies, electric companies etc. But hey, I'm just so happy that I can watch my local over the air TV channels on my cable thanks to "must carry rules"
"Net Neutrality" in practice will mean the same thing for the Internet.
Have you been happy with how FEMA has condicted its operations recently? What about the DOJ? Do you like the new FCC commissioner appointed by the President? How can people complain and complain about these agencies, and at the same time walk to them like a child in a Charles Dickens novel seeking a bowl of gruel?
And yes..... I'd say keeping the FCC out is very important. That is what has made the Internet fundamentally different from other communications technologies, and why Adult businesses like ours have been able to thrive. Why not consider the ramifications of FCC oversight regarding carrying Adult content on the Internet? You don't think that's a possibility?
If you read Cheapdick's article.... I guess it's just a matter of how people view the world.. Some people think that corporations are all the evil, while the government is there to protect us. But I still don't understand how people believe that while simultaneously dislike all the individuals who run the US federal government at the moment. It's as if the think they are the Philosopher King of Plato's Republic.... everything would work if only if only if only they had their people in there following and enacting their belief codes.
How enlightened.
Steve
It's not whether they are "evil" it's whether they are "greedy". I suggest you read the interesting essay on Greed by Julian Edney:Quote:
Some people think that corporations are all the evil, while the government is there to protect us.
http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm
Greed, you get the "Enron's" of the world:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/...21-enron_x.htm
And now playing before you are the "Exxon's" of the world:
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/movie/
Yes, indeed; "I guess it's just a matter of how people view the world.."