It was inevitable..the criminal party and their criminal corporate bedmates can't allow free speech like TLC to exist let alone prosper..it threatens them and their status quo too much...
Posted by headxray at August 21, 2006 04:52 AMStart calling the telecommunicatiions reform act the Authoritarian Telecommunications Reform Act!!
We need to frame the argument as a contest between the citizens and their civil liberty against the Authoritarians.
Let's practice,
The authoritarian measures set forth in the Telecommunications reform act will deprive the citizens who are the heart and soul of the Internet of their right to civil discourse.
Posted by Namer at August 21, 2006 06:19 AMThese jerks will stop at nothing to push their agenda through. It's like fighting an ivy infestation.
I suspect that they're pushing now while they belive that the current majority will do their bidding. If there's a mass incumbent ejection in november, expect this issue - and the same coroporatist bill - to show up in the lame duck session while the previous Congress stuffs every endangered lobbyist bill they can through the pipe.
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 21, 2006 06:24 AMThe goal to make access to information the ultimate commodity equalled only by water for it could be more valuable than oil.
Posted by mainsailset at August 21, 2006 06:54 AMLIke health insurance, like Internet.
Posted by Gary at August 21, 2006 08:02 AMthey best not try to force the tea upon us
these people are crooks, all of them. we now need a total housekeeping
how is it the most criminals in the country are in DC? the jails don't work there?
Question if this does happen will it be possible to get an overseas provider service?
Posted by Daryl at August 21, 2006 09:05 AMLured by huge checks handed out by the country's top lobbyists,
And that is exactly why this bill will pass. Fucked again in the name of republi-con greed. Internet isn't the only place we'll be screwed. I know lots of international folks over here and they are stunned at what we pay for cell phones and how horrid the service is.
Question if this does happen will it be possible to get an overseas provider service?
You can go satellite. It's pricey.
Posted by phidipides at August 21, 2006 10:25 AMHi there, pessimist. I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition, which is on the other side of this, so you may not take me seriously. But I have to try.
There are a few things wrong with the Nation's story, but maybe the worst is that it proposes that, save for new laws, free speech online will be restricted. This always perplexes me -- I'm not sure where the idea came from that telcos wanted to restrict access to sites like The Left Coaster. Content discrimination is not in their best business interests, you follow? People would jump to other ISPs if they did.
As for the roots of the Internet being paid for by taxpayers, that is certainly true. But in recent years, Verizon has laid billions of dollars in new fiber -- see the NYT last week. It's like saying, because someone was on welfare once, the government should be allowed to veto their future actions. Uncle Sam, thank you very much, but the private sector will take it from here.
Moreover, online freedom is not threatened by the telecom companies, but actually by the kind of laws that Save The Internet would see passed. Those would prevent people and companies from entering into contracts to receive a different standard of service known as QoS (see Wikipedia's entry).
One last thing: Ted Stevens is a doofus, that is not doubted. But his bill would remove the question from Congress and place it in the hands of the FCC. Do you really think Stevens is the only senator who's clueless about these issues? Surely he is not. The FCC, meanwhile, has the means to consider these issues and make informed judgments.
For another good take on this debate, see the Washington Post's editorial from June.
I think your argument is heavy on emotion but short on reality. But of course, I am willing to hear you out, if you care to reply. Thanks.
Posted by ghoti06 at August 21, 2006 11:59 AMghoti06: No doubt you're sincere, but saying the Stevens bill takes the matter away from the Congress and gives it to the FCC is not good news. The FCC has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party at least since they eviscerated the "fair-use" doctrine during the Reagan years. Remember, a couple of years back, how the full Senate had to overrule the FCC on the "monopoly media markets" question?
If the Internet As We Know It is perceived as helping liberals and Democrats organize, raise funds and channel political passions, the FCC will be the first ones on the block to have plans to change it.
In fact, even if the telcoms have no such nefarious plans, and, as you say, the pricing/speed combinations that we fear are relatively unprofitable, delivering us into the hands of the FCC still puts us into hot water. I can easily imagine the FCC bargaining over some other regulatory ruling: "change your pricing to stifle the lefties or you don't get the sugar plums you want."
BTW, I haven't seen "ghoti" for 40 years. Nostalgia twinge. Thanks.
Posted by Stuart Thiel at August 21, 2006 12:35 PMContent discrimination is not in their best business interests, you follow?
Just like COX doesn't discriminate against Craig's List?
Uncle Sam, thank you very much, but the private sector will take it from here.
Goodie! Will it be as good as HMO's or the pharmaceutical industry? How's about privatizing the Medicare Prescription Benefit? That's working like windshield wipers on a duck's ass...for those who use it. The private insuror's profits are doing nicely.
What part of this don't you understand and I can explain it to you. I speak Corporate Viking raping and pillaging of the consumer: Japanese consumers pay a mere 75 cents per megabit. South Koreans are charged only 73 cents. But US users are paying $6.10 per megabit. Internet service abroad is also much faster than it is here.
Why do we have to have your overpriced shitty service to make you a buck? Give me real competition with multiple players.
But in recent years, Verizon has laid billions of dollars in new fiber
Too fucking bad. It's a business decision made before this legislation. And, BTW, how many years will they write these upgrades off of their profits essentially making me pay for their upgrades? All they want is egregious profits, not to be profitable. If their cost analyses indicated they would lose money upgrading they would not have done it...or gotten the govt. to pay for it. And who did they get their right-of-ways from?
I think your argument is heavy on emotion but short on reality.
Something tells me your argument indicates you would have sex with your grandmother in the middle of mainstreet or sell one of your kids to a Tijuana donkey show if it would make you a buck.
Posted by phidipides at August 21, 2006 01:21 PMYep. As I write this comment from my apartment in Japan (in a medium-sized town), I can tell you I pay about 25-30 bucks a month for my FTTH (fiber optic to home) connection at download speeds up to 100Mbps. Even ADSL (DSL) is over 40Mbps download here. I was back in the States recently, and was just mystified at how connections could be so slow for what you pay.
Posted by d at August 21, 2006 02:45 PMmy first isp was my neighbor's severs in a closed in porch. he was bought out by ucs ( still in town ) bought out by earthlink, sold to tkr cable bought out by comcast. six bucks a month to one twenty in twelve years and I'm not all that faster then dial up (old t1 speeds) in truth im' glomming a wifi because verizen dsl tacked on 300 bucks for sign on charges "because we can". the fcc is a joke, it took years to discover colen's son was a joke, when put to the fire he evaporated but not before the fox's got there way. we pay they play ... what good is free speech without access ??
Posted by mark miller at August 21, 2006 05:05 PM"what good is free speech without access ??"
There is no free speech without access.
Posted by Judith at August 21, 2006 06:25 PMThere is no free speech without access.
Yup. Unless you tag. But even spray paint is expensive.
in truth im' glomming a wifi because verizen dsl tacked on 300 bucks for sign on charges
Uhhhh. Making a profit yet, ghoti06?
I can tell you I pay about 25-30 bucks a month for my FTTH (fiber optic to home) connection at download speeds up to 100Mbps.
Many advanced societies...amongst them I think Belize...have this same access. Yowza! 100Mbps! I just wish we could get advanced cellular service. Ain't gonna happen. Ungodly huge profits have to made.
Posted by phidipides at August 21, 2006 07:21 PMyes, expensive and under lock and key .... boy do i miss graffiti. the four train; a rainbow blur banging through the gray dead south bronx, the voice for abandoned working poor. in the late 70's in nyc you would have thought tagers and street painters were baby killers. many arrested, some even shot ! if some gallery type could find a way to turn a profit, you had a chance at your "15min" ("crack is wack") but most street art was just poor folk with something to say and no place to say it. all non-conformist speech reveals the failure of power to control. art, well placed, can be a wonderful fuck-you, not such an inappropriate response when you the one getting bent-over.
Stuart, glad to drop the occasional George Bernard Shaw reference.
I think your take on the FCC is a tad too cynical. One can certainl ydisagree with their recent censoriousness on "moral values" but to assume this means they will tilt the playing field, that I think is too conspiratorial. Besides, the Internet may help Democrats, but it helps Republicans, too. But the diffuse nature of the Internet also means they will treat it more like cable, where you can easily avoid the stuff you don't want, instead of broadcast TV, which it does not at all resemble.
Phidipides, I'm afraid you're mistaken on Cox and Craigslist. As you can see by reading at ZDNet, this was actually a software error on Craigslist's end, and they finally got around to fixing it.
Posted by ghoti06 at August 23, 2006 08:18 AMThe giant phone and cable companies are trying to take control of the Internet away from the public and convert it into their own private, corporate network.
Consumers
If you are a consumer – a Mom looking for healthcare information to protect your family; a home-school parent using the Internet as part of your education plan; an email user staying in touch with your family and friends – you will have a degraded slower Internet experience with certain Web sites. Some Web sites will even be unavailable unless additional fees are paid.
Small Business
If you are a small business, you may not be able to survive online. If you are an aspiring entrepreneur, you may be impeded from providing the “next big thing” on the Internet.
Schools & Churches
If you are a small non-profit organization, like a church or a school, you may not be able to get your messages out to congregants or student families without paying more.
This fall, if Congress does not act, all of those things could happen.
Posted by at August 25, 2006 08:23 PM