Y rlly shld pgrd yr mnkr frm "pssmst" t "ptlnt". Hw nfntl t slk tht snc y cn't hv t, n n ls shld thr.
[Editor: ignore=off]Pessimist - it's only a matter of time. All this eyeball space, someone's gotta find a way to make it exclusive, then make scads of cash on it. Silencing dissent is most likely just a bonus.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 9, 2006 05:40 AMWait, there are lefty blogs subsidized by the RNC? Who are they?
I will start a crazy righty blog for some cash from the DNC?
Posted by Marq at February 9, 2006 05:57 AMIn a nutshell - corporations want to make people pay more for the Internet. These corporate honchos fondly recall and romanticise the days of AT&T and othert telecom monopolies making money hand over fist in electronic communications with little or no innovation needed. They look at the mammoth size of their companies and wonder why they can't have what Ma Bell did. Why they can't inhibit communications from outside sources across their wires and servers from providers and to customers outside their own paying pool of customers.
Maybe DJ will know this, but I could swear there was a Supreme Court case about AT&T doing exactly this back in the 20's-40's or something, and the S.C. ruled that the public intrest has greater rigths over the companiy's desires.
- - -
Where Google actually fits into this I don't know. I'm not convinced Google is or is turning evil - these guys play their cards so close to the chest its easy to spin theories of world domination and the torture of innocent animals forced to endlessly run in excerise wheels to power the GoogleNet.
I'm more willing to bet that the dark network fiber plan, google cubes, and home boxes are actually going to be a new TV hybrid network. The dark backbones, distribution points, and talks with current visual content advertisers all point to Google building a national closed circuit TV/data network that simply delivers the last mile via extisting broadband. Or maybe not - they may be planning to run the last mile via new wires . . I've seen studies that say the last mile of the broadband network is typically unchoked with data (unless hosting a server or peer-to-peer file trading) - but I think these studies are a couple years old, and the data they look at older.
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 9, 2006 06:44 AMHow infantile to sulk that since you can't have it, no one else should either.
Yeah. Freedom of Speech is no biggie, and just an annoyance...especially at a funeral. "I got mine, you get yours," translates to America 2nd, Me 1st! The new neo-con anthem.
Posted by phidipides at February 9, 2006 06:44 AMGoogle has been buying up unused fiber optic trunks left over from the dot com bust for several years. It would seem likely that they are planning to set up their own data network. This does not mean that it would be separate from the existing ones, or that they are planning to restrict usage. It may just mean that they want to another revenue stream, becoming, in effect, another phone company.
Any attempt to set up private networks with limited content will fail in a marketplace already conditioned to expect open access. The poor results of AOL show that how appealing private content is.
I'm no fan of Google, I think they are a monopoly for another reason. You can read my concerns here:
Google Monopoly
Gees Pissy mists,
I told Steve he could use my quote "Scolling past the Trolling" but you went and stole it with out my permission.
Just because you changed it slighty didn't mean that I can't maintain my copyright protections.
You'll be hearing from my lawyers....
Dear Thumblina,
Thats called a satire.
Pessimist, you have my permission to use my motto "scroll the troll." Everyone else has my blessing to live it.
As Mr. Universe says: Information must be free. The corporations will try to find a way to tame the 'net so they can make more money, but the hydra can't be tamed.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 9, 2006 08:19 AMThats called a satire.
But not a particularly notable one.
You lousy Brokeback Mountain liberal faggot lesbian loving Hollywood lefties are not going to be allowed to change the manliness of these United States of Socialist Amurica, by God! First you attack Christmas, and now you attack Coree..Coreh...Koruh...K'reta King and her support for the administration. What next? Gay sex demonstrations in classrooms? Sex education and condom use for teenagers? You Godless bastards need to think real hard, because Jesus is going to come fuck you up real soon, in all his great love. Fucking towel head loving traitors! Don't you understand? We're bringing democracy to the Sand-Niggers...uh, Iraqis. Rascist bastards, everyone of you! Vote Red or die, comrade!
Now that's satire. You know, the truth fed back to the owner with a little humor added to it.
Posted by phidipides as a neo-con at February 9, 2006 08:43 AMSatire Meets Real Life Christian Conservatism
Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline's comments about oral sex included stating that it is illegal for boys 15 and younger to perform the act -- but he wasn't sure if the same is true for girls.
Uh-huh!
Posted by pessimist at February 9, 2006 08:51 AMphidipides as a neo-con, That was sardonicism at it's finest! Keep it up.
Posted by bbtb at February 9, 2006 09:03 AMPessimist, of course it was Kansas! My goodness, you ever get the feeling these tightie righties are against all this sex type stuff, just so they can talk about it explicitly, at length, in the bathroom, with drool running down their chins? Because people who are actually having sex don't need to talk about it this much.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 9, 2006 09:34 AMIt'll be hard to compete with a free internet, though.
Posted by muckdog at February 9, 2006 09:41 AMPss, dd y s th rtcl shwng th Hll 'fls mkng chngs t thr ntrsts n Wkpd? pls s, < hrf="http://nws.bbc.c.k/2/h/tchnlgy/4695376.stm" rl="nfllw" trgt="_blnk">wk
[Editor: ignore=off]Yes I did, scout. Thanks for the link.
Just discovered that The Christian Science Monitor is also looking at coming Internet restrictions based on surveillance intrusions:
"We don't realize that, as we live our lives and make little choices, like buying groceries, buying on Amazon, Googling, we're leaving traces everywhere," says Lee Tien, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "We have an attitude that no one will connect all those dots. But these programs are about connecting those dots - analyzing and aggregating them - in a way that we haven't thought about. It's one of the underlying fundamental issues we have yet to come to grips with."
Posted by pessimist at February 9, 2006 10:48 AMThis is an issue we should be able to engage the businees lobby on our side. After all, won't preferential high speed connections cost them much more as well?
Posted by JGabriel at February 9, 2006 12:03 PMGood point, JG.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 9, 2006 01:16 PMThis is the ultimate no-brainer issue for the Democrats. If they are too stupid to take advantage of this one, they don't deserve to lead this country. "Free and Open Internet" ought to be their rallying cry. It will have widespread, enormous support.
Posted by hizzoner at February 9, 2006 07:59 PMJust what I was thinking, hizzoner.
Posted by Sharon at February 9, 2006 08:14 PM"Free and Open Internet"
Isn't on eof the five points in five years free broadband to all Americans? I'm not joking. Anyone else hear this from the Dems?
Posted by phidipides at February 9, 2006 09:12 PM
FREELow-Priced Speech Zone - Coming Soon To An Internet Near And Dear To You