 
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | My lobbiers can beat up your lobbiers American Senators, the best that money can buy!(TM) | |
|  | Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA
edit:
June 29th, @09:45AM
| Re: My lobbiers can beat up your lobbiers Hooray for 60 year old senators not understanding the issues!  | |
| | | | | | | 
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
edit:
June 29th, @10:23AM
| Re: My lobbiers can beat up your lobbiers I'd say most of the 60 yr old senators understood the issues just fine and voted correctly.
Money over freedom is not "correct." | |
| | | | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: My lobbiers can beat up your lobbiers said by tsu  :Money over freedom is not "correct." Innovation and freedom over government regulation is correct. | |
| | | | | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: My lobbiers can beat up your lobbiers And when said things are not available due to lack of regulation, then it is incorrect. Regulation isn't all strangleholds, you know. | |
| | | | | |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by tsu :Money over freedom is not "correct." Innovation and freedom over government regulation is correct. Anybody should have the freedom to provide a service to customers over the internet.
--
My pbase gallery | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| I would normally agree with you on this one Tk, but in this case we will have to disagree.
I can't see this move as innovation. I see it as a way of the incumbant broadband pipe holders of saying "we missed out on the first round of content providing, but we now want our piece of the pie." So what they are wanting to do is put the people that really made the net what it is and force them to pay more to use what they really built. AT&T wants to provide that portal and not MSN.. AT&T wants to provide that movie PPV for $2.99 for a day or two, not Netflix who would give it to you for a week or longer. It's their way of getting into a business that they know they can't or won't sell for what the 3rd parties are selling it for now, so this is a way that they can force the 3rd parties to have to raise their rates so that AT&T and the others can sell their own goods at a higher price.
This is very similar to what they did with DSL. Sure, you could get DSL from other providers, but remember, SBC/AT&T et all had the same product for a lower price .. and hey, "you're getting it from the people that provide it in the first place.. oh, and you'll get your installation done in a few days, not in a few weeks from the other guys." And we all know that the incumbants were the reason the 3rd party orders took so long.. it's becuase they would sit on the 3rd party orders on purpose to hurt them.
This is what their tiering of the internet is all about. It's to drive people away from the 3rd party providers on the internet so that people will buy from the incumbants.
In any other case, I would agree with you about innovation. However, these guys do what they do - provide access to the internet. They are trying to turn the internet into AOL - the next gen... ie: and "information service" like AOL was when it started.
What made the internet innovative was when people put out what's out there today. "If you can think it, you can make it happen." - Now, like everything else, you have to baseically jump through several hurdles to get to people again.
It's not the content providers AT&T and the likes have to worry about, it's the customers that aren't going to take this kinda crap.
The AT&T's out there are not wanting to offer internet any more. They are trying to undo what's already been done. They are just being bullies and greedy.
Like I said, we're going to have to disagree on this one. When we are talking about innovations and this issue, it's really about content in the end. AT&T, Verizon, et all, have NEVER been innovative on content. What they ARE good at is fuc**ng up everything they try to "innovate" in the end.
They mess up the internet, and I will go back to a T-1 line and say screw these guys. | |
| | | | | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: My lobbiers can beat up your lobbiers said by fiberguy :The AT&T's out there are not wanting to offer internet any more. They are trying to undo what's already been done. I agree with you 100%. Although I know Congress will fail here (and we are starting to see this, I was so tempted to post a "See I Told You So" msg), I would like to see a law passed that specifically disallows ISPs from downgrading or blocking traffic between their customers and content providers because those content providers didn't pay the bribe fee.
As for ISPs being allowed to build extra pipes so they can offer their own content or services... this isn't a problem at all provided that ISPs don't get away with restricting their customer's ability to access competitors.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
| | | | | | | | DSLdewd
join:2004-06-05
Denver, CO | Re: My lobbiers can beat up your lobbiers This isn't about ISP's (internet service providers); this is about ILEC's (incumbent local exchange carriers). More specifically, this is about AT&T (formerly SBC), Verizon and BellSouth. | |
| | | | | | | bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
·Comcast
edit:
June 29th, @12:28PM
| "I see it as a way of the incumbant broadband pipe holders of saying "we missed out on the first round of content providing, but we now want our piece of the pie." So what they are wanting to do is put the people that really made the net what it is and force them to pay more to use what they really built. AT&T wants to provide that portal and not MSN.. AT&T wants to provide that movie PPV for $2.99 for a day or two, not Netflix who would give it to you for a week or longer. It's their way of getting into a business that they know they can't or won't sell for what the 3rd parties are selling it for now, so this is a way that they can force the 3rd parties to have to raise their rates so that AT&T and the others can sell their own goods at a higher price." This is pretty much the stance of any incumbant. We saw what you did, now we want to do it too. Only we will make it more difficult, more costly, and then we pay off a generation of congressmen who still think the Internet was created by Al Gore in his garage. All the while crying poverty when asked why the US continues to slip farther behind the technical forefront. Anything 'their' network touches they want a piece of the pie, hell they will take the whole thing if nobody jabs em with a sharp enough fork.
American infrastructure, the modern day mafia. | |
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by TK Junk Mail :Innovation and freedom over government regulation is correct. Without competition, there is no need for innovation. | |
| | | | | | 
Industry_Pro
@comcast.net
| >Innovation and freedom over government regulation is >correct.
I personally agree with this. Yet the truth is that advocates for the Bell monopoly system (being re-formed in front of our eyes) have always craved regulation - mainly those regulations which make it impossible for anyone else to compete. Ted Vail (ATT President who created the monopoly system in concert with the government) basically stated that they were willing to trade more regulation by the government, in return for favorable government regulations that would create and preserve the monopoly. The whole AT&T idea was that the nation's communications system was to be created as a "regulated natural monopoly"
As is quoted in the URL's below -
-------------------------------------------------
His name was Theodore N. Vail. He's the man who built the Bell telephone system in the early years of the last century, who said, "We have to be regulated, so let us think through what form regulations should take."
--------------------------------------------------
Here are some URL's about this:
»www.bellsystemmemorial.com/whatk···ell.html
»72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:WNo···nt=opera
»www.pfdf.org/conferences/drucker01.html
So, in fact, the Bell monopoly apologists are disingenuous in the extreme to claim that they don't want regulation. In fact they only don't want *certain* regulations - the ones that don't benefit them. In trade they offer politicians popularity through selling unprofitable accounts to rural and impoverished or low density constituents, and cash payments in the form of election funds and so forth. It's a scam and has been for over 100 years.
It's also funny to see Bell monopoly apologists claim to be for "freedom" when in fact the whole telecom infrastructure was built using government forces to prevent anyone else from building a similar infrastructure. Remember, AT&T's agreement with the government was that the government would use it's resources to enforce a monopolistic system. It was made criminal to try and offer competing services, or even compatible equipment. *That's* the history of the now supposedly capitalistic, free market Bell system. It was all funded and built on a fascist/socialist government/industry collusion, and that's an indisputable fact of history.
Now they want to claim to be free market, no regulation types - when that's convenient for them. Well that's just "a load" as we say in Texas. *They* eliminated the free market in telecom over 100 years ago and *begged* for government regulation.
All our problems with telecom today are related to the abandonment of the free market to create a socialist ideal called "universal service" - and to buy votes.
- IP | |
| | | | | | | 
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| Re: My lobbiers can beat up your lobbiers said by Industry_Pro :
So, in fact, the Bell monopoly apologists are disingenuous in the extreme to claim that they don't want regulation. In fact they only don't want *certain* regulations - the ones that don't benefit them. With all respect to Ed McMahon: "You are correct, sir, YES!" | |
| | | | | | 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | I fail to see how extortion and bribery are innovation and freedom? | |
| | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| You'll never convince Tkjunkmail of anything non-pro corporate.. he's got a one track mind.. too bad, because he seems relatively intelligent..
If this was the watered down "compromise" net-neutrality bill that they were talking about, then it's a good thing it was voted down, because it was basically everything the telecom's wanted. | |
| | | | | | lawrence171
Evilly Yours - Evilness
join:2001-12-24
Canada
·Acanac Inc.
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by tsu :Money over freedom is not "correct." Innovation and freedom over government regulation is correct. So is unregulated monopoly over essential goods and services.
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake? | |
| | | | | | broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY | What's innovative about gouging? | |
| | | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
edit:
June 29th, @12:41PM
| double post sorry | |
| | | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| Get real he voted correctly yes, but we know that only happened because his right pocket was lined with more gold than his left. I'd be surprised if he even knows how to use google. No offense to old people I am aiming this specifically at our auctioned elected officials. | |
| SaBo7Ge
join:2003-03-12
US | A sad day for Americans A sad day for Americans =/ | |
| bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL
| May be for the better... From what I understand about the bill, it was quite watered down,wordy (I think on purpose to be sorta vague) with out enough bite on the incumbents to make the bill worth while, with out any REAL SERIOUS penalties to make one(corporation)want to go by it. | |
| 93468698
join:2006-06-27
Loveland, CO | Dumb question here What is the Net Neutrality act? Have no idea what it is about. | |
| | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Dumb question here said by 93468698 :What is the Net Neutrality act? Have no idea what it is about. Telcos have proposed structuring the internet like the post office. When you mail something, you can send it bulk rate, second class, first class, or express, depending on how much you want to pay. Same package delivered on the same network, just with different speeds. A 'tiered' internet would be much the same, where you pay extra for greater speed. Net neutrality advocates reject this idea and claim everyone should have the same speeds for the same price on the internet. There's also a certain amount of paranoia that the telcos will intentionally slow down traffic for those on the cheaper tiers.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Re: Dumb question here Not quite, the post office charges the people sending the data for the service of delivery. The net neutrality discussion is about telecom companies charging content innovators a fee to access their user base. The content innovators already pay their bandwidth fees to THEIR telecom companies, who can raise those prices if they want. This is about charging a content innovator a fee when a user of the telecom companies requests for data to be transfered to them.
The worst part is, if every country and pipeline servicer adopted this system, any content innovator would have to pay fees to 100's of companies just so their users could receive the service that they pay the pipeline servicers for.
The thing we are worried about is that content innovation will cease because those that are innovating it will have their ideas duplicated by the telecom portals, who will be able to offer the content at less expense (because they can set their toll booth fees at whatever they'd like).
The irony is that the content providers are what give the telecom companies any value. Without content the internet would be a network for banks to talk to each other. You can bet your ass millions would not be paying $40-$50's a month to have access to it. | |
| | | | psychomf
join:2000-06-01
Silver Spring, MD
| Re: Dumb question here The post office analogy fits your description too. Content providers have to pay to get their "package" delivered quickly, just like you or I would have to pay extra if we decided to deliver content over the internet (commonly known as operating a website).
Its tierd access no matter how you look at it and anyone trying to put a site up would be affected....the only ones that wouldnt are the recipients of said "packages" (customers).
this is all mumbo jumbo though. they ignore the fact that google pays handsomly for their internet connection and so do the end users. Those costs should more than cover any routing infrastructure the telco's put up. If they cant make the profits they wish to make in this truly open and fair market, then they should get into another industry.
But with our congress, all you have to do is buy a congressman (cough ted stevens cough) and get the rules changed so that things are no longer fair and open. | |
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Re: Dumb question here Yes, but when you pay more to the post office, they put it on an airplane, as opposed to a truck, to get it there faster. With QOS, they add a tag and put it on the truck. Then if there is too much on the truck, the one's without the tags get bumped.
"But what if they all have tags?" Oh, it's exactly the same as it is now, but with an additional fee.
What are those one's with the special tags that never get bumped? Those are the telco packages, they always get priority.
What happens when they get changed to a different truck(network)? Those tags are removed, thanks for the money! | |
| | | Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| said by footballdude :said by 93468698 :What is the Net Neutrality act? Have no idea what it is about. There's also a certain amount of paranoia that the telcos will intentionally slow down traffic for those on the cheaper tiers. And how will that work for people who are on DSL and can't get high speeds? | |
| | | | psychomf
join:2000-06-01
Silver Spring, MD
| Re: Dumb question here this is not really about your internet connection. This is more about the networks that your daily internet activity takes you through. If you access a site that belongs to someone who can afford to pay the telcos their extortion money then no problem, if you dont then every once in a while you will not be able to reach the site and you will have to refresh your page. (its a way for big media to kill the voice of the little guy) | |
| 
Grethor
Today Is A Good Day To Format
join:2004-04-14
Puyallup, WA
clubs: | Less Govt = Good thing Although I get a bit confused with the propaganda on both sides at times, my instincts say let the market decide how things evolve. The government regulates far too much of private enterprise as it is. | |
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Less Govt = Good thing That's the problem. This legislation is to keep the internet as it is. The monopolies are trying to change it, NOT the market. There is no free market here. | |
| |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
edit:
June 29th, @02:01PM
| said by Grethor :Although I get a bit confused with the propaganda on both sides at times, my instincts say let the market decide how things evolve. The government regulates far too much of private enterprise as it is. The telcos are making the argument that sounds like they're in favor of the free market, but they're just asking for regulation of a different flavor (which happens to favor them). | |
| | |
Grethor
Today Is A Good Day To Format
join:2004-04-14
Puyallup, WA
clubs: | Re: Less Govt = Good thing Well I don't know what to support then. I can't stand government regs and I can't stand getting screwed by corps.
I am going to move to Pennsylvania and become Amish. | |
| | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| said by jslik :The telcos are making the argument that sounds like they're in favor of the free market, but they're just asking for regulation of a different flavor (which happens to favor them). Very well said. | |
| 
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| dont know about you guys... but I'd be pretty pissed if I were to get billed twice for the same thing...
This is like the current class struggle here in the good ole united states...(a struggle that began way back and has yet been "resolved") The poor, slower connections will lack any kind of way of getting proper service online while the rest move on, as if the slower connections dont even exist. But all the while, the telco's get to dip their hands into the honey pot twice...looks to me like classic American politics.
to all the anti-nuetrality proponents, I say "go to hell". | |
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: dont know about you guys... There is no "class struggle" in the U.S.; just a left-right political dichotomy.
"Classic American" politics only differs from "classic European" politics in that the U.S. is (supposedly) a Federal Republic, not a Parliamentary, political system.
The problem with blaming the telcos for this fracas is that they aren't the only companies which will benefit. The cable companies are letting the telcos duke it out; but they will join the telcos in making the bucks off of Google, Yahoo!, MSN, et al., should the telcos get the "regulation" that they desire. What will benefit AT&T, Bellsouth, and Verizon will also benefit Charter, Comcast, and Road Runner.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| |
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| no class struggle? Have you EVER entered section 8 housing? Im not really into throwing out insults, but you sir are ridiculously naive and way to into that "im smart, so im right" train of thoughts..lol
dichotomy or not, when a millionaire gets thousands upon thousands of dollars back from taxes where as the poor gets a cool 20 bucks, THERE DAMN SURE IS A CLASS STRUGGLE GOIN ON...
shit as apparent as this cant be danced around with political buzz words... | |
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: dont know about you guys... said by FiL :no class struggle? Have you EVER entered section 8 housing? Im not really into throwing out insults, but you sir are ridiculously naive and way to into that "im smart, so im right" train of thoughts..lol dichotomy or not, when a millionaire gets thousands upon thousands of dollars back from taxes where as the poor gets a cool 20 bucks, THERE DAMN SURE IS A CLASS STRUGGLE GOIN ON... shit as apparent as this cant be danced around with political buzz words... When the government takes away your money, then decides to give it back, if they only took 20 bucks away from you, how damned much money should they give back to you? If they took 20 million bucks from you, then decided to give it back...
The people in Section 8 housing are often like the guy who hit me up for a couple of buck on the streets of San Francisco. He claimed he wanted the money because he hadn't had anything to eat that day. He damned sure didn't seem to grateful to get a free lunch from me, though; I think he just wanted some cash for drugs or booze. Neither was the bum grateful so many years ago when I gave him the rest of my breakfast. I am disinclined to hand them cash, though; if they are hungry, they can eat the food that I give them. Or toss it in my face to prove that you are the one who is ridiculously naive.
People with sufficient incentive to do so can get rich in the U.S. Incentive trumps intelligence, or I'd be rich.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
|  What a "hold" by Sen Wyden means
Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, used a parliamentary maneuver called a "hold" that could effectively prevent any vote on the bill "until it includes strong net neutrality provisions." Senators can put a hold on a bill. But since Wyden is a Democrat and the Majority Leader is a Republican, the Majority Leader can ignore Wyden and bring the bill up for a vote anyway. But then Wyden can filibuster if he can round up 40 more Senators to back him. The 2 party leaders will be doing some vote counting the next day or two to see how this will play out.
»www.digitaldivide.net/blog/TimKa···ID=15952
According to the Senate's official site, a hold is:
"An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure."
Senator Stevens is uncertain that he has the 60 votes to break a filibuster. If at least 41 Senators stand strong behind Net Neutrality, then Wyden's hold could keep the Telecom bill from the floor.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| |
Question
@optonline.net
| Re: What a "hold" by Sen Wyden means Unless I am mistaken, no telco has stated they plan to degrade or block any website or application from any customer. However, that seems to be the claim everyone is making.
Furthermore, the telco's haven't asked for any legislation to be written. What they are lobbying for is the status quo. Why are we encouraging the government to create a law for a problem that doesn't exist?
If the day comes where telco's are blocking or degrading service, then there will be no problem passing net neutrality legislation quite swiftly. | |
| | |
Industry_Pro
@comcast.net
| Re: What a "hold" by Sen Wyden means >Unless I am mistaken, no telco has stated they plan to >degrade or block any website or application from any >customer.
That's just not true - what about these comments from the ATT CEO:
"The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
Those are his own words.
What about the BellSouth CIO -
"BellSouth CTO William L. Smith told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be, for example, able to charge Yahoo for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than Google. Smith made comparisons to first class vs. coach airline tickets and ground vs. express package delivery, and wondered why he shouldn’t be able to offer similar tiered service options."
Also the Bell monopolists and those with interests in them are emphatically *NOT* I repeat, *NOT* lobbying for the status quo. They want the government to give them absolute permission to pick winners, losers, who gets to the user faster, who has more quality of service, etc., from the general internet to their customers. They DO NOT WANT the customer having the right to choose for themselves what services they want from a level playing field of services that are carried with equal priority, equal speed, equal QOS - which **IS** the current status quo.
- IP | |
| | | |
Question
@optonline.net
| Re: What a "hold" by Sen Wyden means I will state again that no ISP has made any claim that they plan to degrade or block any traffic to any website. The quotes listed above not mention anything about degrading or blocking traffic. But people have somehow decided that is the intention of the ISP's.
Do you really think any ISP is dumb enough to block Google from their customers? Tens of thousands of customers would switch ISP's the second any one of them began blocking access to websites.
Furthermore, on the issue of Status Quo, the ISP's are lobbying for no law on net neutrality. The current law allows the FCC to regulate the ISP's and prevent and type of blocking access to websites. Please show me the language in any bill that states ISP's have the "absolute permission" to pick winners and losers on the Internet.
The U.S. Postal Service ("USPS") analogy that has been mentioned before is really right in line with this issue. The current Internet is the USPS. Everyone pays to send letters and packages (i..e data) across the Internet. A company like Google currently pays more since they send more letters to customers. What the ISP's want to do is offer a Fed-ex like service. If a Google, MSN or any other website wants to send data faster, they can pay extra. No one is going to block the letters sent by the USPS; they will still be delivered just as they are today.
Could you imagine passing a law that doesn't allow Amazon to offer free two-day shipping to a customer because it gives them an unfair advantage over a smaller website who can't afford to offer the same level of service. Instead everyone must send letters and packages through the USPS. That is exactly what this current Net Neutrality legislation would do to the Internet. | |
| | | |
|
|
