| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: The end of the Free Internet? Posted by: Myboyjack - Dude [014826271] Wed, Nov 16, 2005, 08:43 The EU and the UN want to run the internet. God help us. A tense dispute over US control of the Internet in the run-up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) could eventually lead to the break-up of the global network and hamper seamless browsing, officials warned. .... From the people who gave us Libya on the UN Human Rights Commission and the administrative nightmare and thought police that is the EU comes the idea to detroy the internet as we know it. Imagine having to negotioate with the Chinese and Saudi Arabian delegations for your next domain. Screw this. | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 121 | Boldwin ID: 224592123 Sat, May 22, 2010, 01:04 | And if it turns out that Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh sneak out the back door of the Koch brothers' reunion with Richard Mellon Scaife with their marching orders tucked under their arms, I'll slap you on the back and let out a hearty 'whatayaknow'! | ||||||
| 122 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Sat, May 22, 2010, 01:09 | Still waiting for the answer to the Soros math question... | ||||||
| 123 | Boldwin ID: 224592123 Sat, May 22, 2010, 01:18 | How much water does it take to prime the pump? Just ask Soros cause he has it mastered. | ||||||
| 124 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Sat, May 22, 2010, 01:37 |
I only respond to you in order to watch you run away from what you post. Major contributor, indeed. And $7 million proves it! I like to remind myself that you are the face of the current GOP. And that gets me feeling pretty good inside. | ||||||
| 125 | Boldwin ID: 224592123 Sat, May 22, 2010, 01:47 |
I try not to dwell on the fact that self-assuming would-be elitists like you think they should run my life and have the media on their side. BTW, Have you found an natural gas trucks yet, on your way to regulating energy in PA? | ||||||
| 126 | Boldwin ID: 24528715 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 08:46 | A Lawyer's perspective on why the internet will inevitably be brought under control. Taming of the West, metaphor explaining the future of the internet. - The Volokh Conspiracy | ||||||
| 127 | WTC Building 7 ID: 51538158 Wed, Jun 16, 2010, 09:58 |
link New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet. | ||||||
| 128 | Tree ID: 248472317 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 01:02 |
it's funny to me how much of a crock of $hit this thread has become - this is an important issue, and it's become a thread of liberal bashing. typical. Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse | ||||||
| 129 | The Left Behind ID: 66232012 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 09:36 |
Wow. So much anger at 1am. Yeah surprise the party of big government gets bashed in a thread about government fondling the internet. News at 10. The internet is way too juicy of a target for the government to keep its meathooks off of. These people won't even let us handle our retirement or healthcare. What makes you think they'll let us self manage how we get our information? | ||||||
| 130 | The Left Behind ID: 66232012 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 09:37 | BTW, the internet was never free to begin with really. Ever pay the bill from your provider? | ||||||
| 131 | Mith ID: 2672547 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 09:42 |
Its a tough issue for conservatives. The free market position supports turning the internet into a tiered service where you pay more for better levels of access, like cable/satellite/fiber tv providers. Their proposal potentially eliminates the possibility of another startup with the vision of Google to take the same path to success, since a scrappy startupu might never be able to take advantages of services which are now sold at a premium. Aligning with net neutrality advocates now also means supporting the FCC imposing regulations on how businesses are allowed to provide internet access to customers. The FCC announced last week that they have run out of compromises to offer. I haven't looked into it but I have a gut feeling that there were more pro-net neutrality conservatives when Bush (who also appointed pro-net neutrality FCC comissioners) was president. Despite the potential affront to small businesses in the free market position, the GOP in congress (which is well established as anti-net neutrality) will countter with the claim that Obama is stifiling job growth in silicon valley. | ||||||
| 132 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 09:43 |
True. Plus the cost of the computer, router, etc. Obama just announced that some of the stimulus money will go toward expanding broadband access across the country. | ||||||
| 133 | Razor ID: 57854118 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 09:44 |
That's like saying roads aren't free because you have to buy gas to drive on them. If you did a little bit of research, which has actually already been done for you in this thread, you'd see one group is on the right side of net neutrality and one is not. | ||||||
| 134 | C1-NRB ID: 2672611 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 09:54 |
BTW, the internet was never free to begin with really. Ever pay the bill from your provider? In the olden days we used a service called "freei.net" It was "paid for" by constant ads that ran across the top of your browser. But that was back in the days before the bubble burst and companies realized that the internet didn't work like broadcast TV. I never sent anyone any money. Then it went out of business, so... | ||||||
| 135 | Frick ID: 1076109 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 10:06 |
Net neutrality has a couple of facets, but the main point is that all data has to be treated equally. The main fear is that a provider like Verizon could allow Google services (which now owns Youtube) to be very quick, but throttle data from a competing site, like Microsoft's Bing. I don't have an issue with offering tiered service plans. I have a huge problem with providers trying to force me to their partnered content providers. | ||||||
| 136 | Tree ID: 248472317 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 10:16 |
Yeah surprise the party of big government gets bashed in a thread about government fondling the internet. actually, there's no surprise. i am no longer surprised when the ignorant and ill-informed (those who won't watch videos or read news stories or even think for themselves) bash the Obama administration for even the dumbest things. BTW, the internet was never free to begin with really. Ever pay the bill from your provider? the internet is free. and always has been. access to it may, or may not be. there are still free ways to access the 'net, but for decent service, in all cases i know about, you have to pay for it. still, that's a choice. if you wanted dial-up service, and you didn't mind lag times, and you used the 'net for a limited number of minutes per month, you could access the web for free. but there's a difference between paying for access, and suddenly having tiered services related to what websites you might be able to visit. | ||||||
| 137 | Mith ID: 28646259 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 11:02 |
Tiered service packaging for personal private access is bad enough, but I'm more concerned for how business services could be effected. Also, the current proposal is much worse that the site- bottlenecking concern Frick describes. They want the right to block certain sites altogether, depending on how you access the Internet. | ||||||
| 138 | The Left Behind ID: 66232012 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 13:17 |
if you wanted dial-up service, and you didn't mind lag times, and you used the 'net for a limited number of minutes per month, you could access the web for free. Right. And if I didn't mind an oil derrick, a refinery, and gas pump in my backyard I could probably drill for oil, refine it, and fill my car and get gas for free, but that ain't exactly realistic or representative of the population now is it? | ||||||
| 139 | Mith ID: 2672547 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 13:25 | Neither is the bill from your provider relevent to the reference to 'free internet' as it is primarily intended. That isn't the issue. | ||||||
| 140 | The Left Behind ID: 66232012 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 13:28 |
Hey, free means no cost right? OK, well every site is a pay site because it costs you money just to have a connection. Are you against pay sites? I have a paid online subscription to the Wall Street Journal. You think I shouldn't have to pay for that? You got that ESPN Insider (I don't.)? Should everybody have that for free? When I talk about the "free" internet, I am mainly talking about no censorship, thinks like that, but I still people in the right for companies to charge for premium content just like cable TV. What are you people talking about? | ||||||
| 141 | Mith ID: 2672547 Tue, Aug 10, 2010, 18:33 |
There's a summary of the Google/Verizon proposal in the link in #128. The actual proposal is linked there. | ||||||
| 142 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Oct 21, 2010, 13:48 | The ACLU weighs in with a rather long paper on the net neutrality. | ||||||
| 143 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 15:00 | 0 for 95. | ||||||
| 144 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 15:21 | That is little surprising. I am not surprised that there were no republicans on the list but you would think that there would be at least one get elected. I guess we know where the money is at. | ||||||
| 145 | Boldwin ID: 561149228 Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 14:01 |
The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of [admitted marxist-B] Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. | ||||||
| 146 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 16:56 |
I actually know Bob McChesney. He's a left winger, all right, and his big issue is media ownership issues. I realize that isn't a problem for those who enjoy getting tooled by the conservative media. And since the GOP is bought up completely by big business and their lobbyist such a piece is of no surprise to me. According to McChesney, Big Brother will take the form of a monopolistic media first, telling people what to think, when to think it, and what to do about it. But I would have hoped that Fund would have either purchased some content to insert into his piece or just shut up about it, since he's incapable of generating any of his own. | ||||||
| 147 | Boldwin ID: 561149228 Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 17:27 |
Do you really feel the internet is monopoly controlled? There isn't any crisis that needs FCC fixing that I can see. It's the lack of government strings and monopoly power that has made the internet great. But you are happy to turn monopoly power over the internet to politicians. What could go wrong? | ||||||
| 148 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 18:40 |
The point about net neutrality is that no one controls how content on the internet flows. This isn't about "politicians" versus "big business." This is about "big business" versus "free flowing internet content." Don't worry--FOX Nation told me it was so... | ||||||
| 149 | Boldwin ID: 561149228 Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 20:00 |
There is a lotta space between preventing preferential access by the providers and what Robert McChesney revealed was the real point of the exersize. I expect fits and starts as we descend to a censored internet Soros is paying for and people like Hillary have been craving for decades. Listening to Sharpton threaten Limbaugh recently makes me realize there will be a rush to censor. And as soon as R's lose the House... | ||||||
| 150 | DWetzel at work ID: 49962710 Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 10:21 | Because, clearly, only the left would ever try to buy media access to promote their viewpoint. | ||||||
| 151 | Frick ID: 5310541617 Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 10:29 |
Here's a good infographic that breaks down the net neutrality issue. | ||||||
| 152 | weykool ID: 138481617 Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 12:15 |
Completely bogus argument Frick. As long as the market remains free there would be ISP companies that would charge just like they do now. If AT&T tries to bill for services seperately they would lose millions when customers switched to the better deal. | ||||||
| 153 | Razor ID: 471172122 Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 13:29 | The completely bogus argument is to speculate that the ideal state, which is what we have now, might not be worsened by allowing companies to dictate what content is available. Tell me how ending net neutrality could possibly be better for consumers. | ||||||
| 154 | DWetzel ID: 33337117 Thu, Dec 23, 2010, 13:37 | They own stock in AT&T? What do I win? | ||||||
| 155 | Boldwin ID: 91156247 Fri, Dec 24, 2010, 09:19 |
Tell me how ending net neutrality could possibly be better for consumers. - SZ Tell me what harm we are suffering right now. | ||||||
| 156 | Frick ID: 5310541617 Fri, Dec 24, 2010, 14:53 |
Not sure what argument I was making. And internet service is a free market, with an extremely high barrier to entry. I live in a city of 50k and I have 2 options if I want high speed internet. While it is a free market, I don't have unlimited choices. NBC Universal and Comcast are moving. How long until NBC content is restricted to Comcast subscribers? Want to watch the Superbowl in 2012 in HD? Better have Comcast or you need to pay a premium to subscribe Comcast's HD feed. | ||||||
| 157 | Boldwin ID: 38112911 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 03:51 |
| ||||||
| 158 | Boldwin ID: 38112911 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 04:00 |
FCC Orders NBC Newsrooms To Partner With Soros-Funded Non-Profits The local non profit journalism center is a member of INN (Investigative News Network) which is funded by the Open Society Institute, the URL of which is “www.soros.org.” Yes, these “non-profit” journalism centers are funded by George Soros. And that is the 'local' activist pressure angle I was warning you about so often. No big deal? We'll see how you feel when ABC is ordered to partner with a local Tea Party group to "co-produce and supply content" in 2013. | ||||||
| 159 | Mith ID: 371138719 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 06:00 |
The "order" (if that term applies) gives all of 5 O&O NBC network affiliates 1 year to find a nonprofit local news organization to partner with. Unless you can make a case that George Soros controls and advances his agenda through every or some majority of nonprofit news organizations in the country, I don't see the problem. | ||||||
| 160 | Mith ID: 371138719 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 06:04 | More info here. | ||||||
| 161 | Boldwin ID: 171501015 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 17:08 | Really, if the FCC orders the local Tea Party to oversee the local branch of the MSM you are ok with it? Just getting you on the record for 2012 and on. | ||||||
| 162 | Mith ID: 371138719 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 23:52 | I have no idea what you mean by 'oversee' or why you think this will lead to their ordering associations between news media outlets and specific organizations. | ||||||
| 163 | Boldwin ID: 171501015 Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 04:07 | This is getting Orwellian. Do you have trouble processing the words co-produce and order? If I give you the order to do something by a certain deadline have I not 'ordered you'? | ||||||
| 164 | Mith ID: 371138719 Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 04:39 |
I understand the word coproduce better than you do. 'Oversee' is not a synonym. And I clearly understand the use of the word order in this case better than you. But this is a fun game. Do you have trouble processing the freedom of these 5 network O&Os to select a nonprofit of their choosing? When media outlets are forced to content of other organizations selected by the FCC, you'll have me as an ally. Until something resembling that happens, this is just another chicken little cry for attention. | ||||||
| 165 | Seattle Zen ID: 3603123 Tue, Nov 27, 2012, 00:11 |
Bitter Struggle Over Internet Regulation to Dominate Global Summit The 12-day conference of the International Telecommunications Union, a 157-year-old organization that's now an arm of the United Nations, largely pits revenue-seeking developing countries and authoritarian regimes that want more control over Internet content against U.S. policymakers and private Net companies that prefer the status quo. While specifics of some of the most contentious proposals remain secret, leaked drafts show that Russia is seeking rules giving individual countries broad permission to shape the content and structure of the Internet within their borders, while a group of Arab countries is advocating universal identification of Internet users. Some developing countries and telecom providers, meanwhile, want to make content providers pay for Internet transmission. Fundamentally, most of the 193 countries in the ITU seem eager to enshrine the idea that the U.N. agency, rather than today's hodgepodge of private companies and nonprofit groups, should govern the Internet. | ||||||
| 166 | boikin ID: 532592112 Tue, Nov 27, 2012, 12:30 | Good Post, Probably one of the more important stories right now and it is being largely ignored. | ||||||
| 167 | Boldwin ID: 121044275 Tue, Nov 27, 2012, 18:18 | Huge. | ||||||
| 168 | Boldwin ID: 121044275 Tue, Nov 27, 2012, 19:23 | Not in the same league as the last point, but here an Australian jury does it's best to bankrupt Google's search engine business. Perhaps on behalf of a mobster, no less. | ||||||
| 169 | Mith ID: 231150292 Wed, Jan 15, 2014, 10:20 | Net Neutrality in peril again. | ||||||
| 170 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Wed, Jan 15, 2014, 12:18 | and with the current SCOTUS sitting 5-4 in favor of profits over fairness, if it goes before SCOTUS anytime relatively soon; net neutrality will remain in serious jeopardy. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: The end of the Free Internet? | ||||||||