HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Apr 28, 2006, 07:35 AM
Veracitarian at large
SAILORMAN's Avatar
Joined Mar 2005
266 Posts
Discussion
They know which side their bread's buttered on

I hope you got a great big tax cut. Because the Bush Crime Family, their corporate pimps and their congressional toadies are selling you out again. First to the C.C. companies, with the bankruptcy bill, then the oil companies (as we type, the repubs are fighting GW's repeal of their 500 thousand million tax break), then the pharmas...
Do you even remember when they last did anything to help you instead of their big contributors? But once again it's payback time. Time for the repubs to chisel away at some more freedoms and hold your feet so their corporate puppetmasters can shake the coins out of your pockets.

First, the assault on NETWORK NEUTRALITY. The very foundation of the internet is under assault. The only thing that keeps the internet from devolving into a glorified tv. Jim, you listening? Are you saving up your protection money? Or you gonna start charging a subscription fee?

How would the gutting of Network Neutrality affect you?

Google users—Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.

Innovators with the "next big idea"—Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.

Ipod listeners—A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.
Political groups—Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their websites and online features to work correctly.

Nonprofits—A charity's website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can't pay dominant Internet providers for access to "the fast lane" of Internet service.

Online purchasers—Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices—distorting your choice as a consumer.

Small businesses and tele-commuters—When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.

Parents and retirees—Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.

Bloggers—Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips—silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.

Blocking Innovation

Corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:

In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.

In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.

Shaw, a major Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers who want to use a competing Internet telephone service.

In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they'll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet.


More info: WWW.SAVETHEINTERNET.COM

YOU COULD BE A TERROIST.

About that back up CD you made. You could be a terrorist! And you can get 10 years, not just for doing it, but even for possessing the software to do it. 10 years in prison for attempting it. I'd get far less for raping your sister. Where are their priorities. Don't tell me. Lemme guess.
Torquemada Gonzalez introduces the magic word TERRORISM for the cowardly types who'll automatically go along with anything to feel safe from those big bad terrorists. So, naturally the bill would also expand his power to WIRETAP YOU in order to protect the profits of the RIAA.

......The 24-page bill is a far-reaching medley of different proposals cobbled together. One would, for instance, create a new federal crime of just trying to commit copyright infringement. Such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison.

It also represents a political setback for critics of expanding copyright law, who have been backing federal legislation that veers in the opposite direction and permits bypassing copy protection for "fair use" purposes. That bill--introduced in 2002 by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat--has been bottled up in a subcommittee ever since......


Bye, bye "Fair Use" doctrine.

Rest of Article. http://news.com.com/Congress+readies...?tag=sas.email

Yessir!! I just love the small government repugs. (and their dino lapdogs)
SAILORMAN is offline Find More Posts by SAILORMAN
Last edited by SAILORMAN; Apr 28, 2006 at 07:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 08:00 AM
You win again, gravity!
Muxje's Avatar
Rotterdam, NL
Joined Jun 2004
279 Posts
This could be bad, but is probably not as bad as it seems. Especially if normal regulatory practices apply.

Quote:
Google users—Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
I doubt that the law allows that. Competing search engines can buy premium network access for themselves... and Google can do the same. Offering fast access to one and denying the same to another company (even if they offer to pay) seems grounds for court action.

Quote:
When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.
I think that anything that is a defacto forced monopoly, should be either state-owned or heavily regulated. For example: our ex-state telco owns almost all of the local loops; i.e. the copper wires that come into your house. But regulations prevent them from abusing this to make me get a subscription with them: they can not prevent any other provider from using that bit of wire, and they can only charge a nominal fee for the privilege, set by the regulators.

But if they are the only one providing ADSL in your area, that's though luck for you. However, if they start slowing down certain services in the way you describe, it should become increasingly attractive for competitors to muscle in and take their business.

That's how it should work. Don't regulate business or prevent them from implementing pricing plans that they feel are in their best interest, but instead ensure that consumers are not prevented from choosing a competitor, and ensure that competitors are not barred from offering their services to the consumers.

If my ISP starts shaping network traffic according to how much services pay them, instead of according to what I pay them, then I'll switch providers in a heartbeat. Other will do the same.

Especially since many popular websites are (understandably) opposed to this idea. Imagine surfing to Google and seeing this message (easy enough to implement):
Quote:
WARNING:
Your ISP (AT&T) is attempting to charge Google so that you can continue to access our site over the internet. Because of this, our website may appear to load much slower than usual. We assure you this is not our fault, and we hope you continue to use our site in the future.
Muxje is offline Find More Posts by Muxje
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 08:10 AM
Vertical Wake
splatman's Avatar
visalia ca
Joined Dec 2002
734 Posts
I'm shocked. Sailorman bashing Bush and the evil corporations....
splatman is offline Find More Posts by splatman
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 09:24 AM
God is good
Viper Pilot's Avatar
Banjul
Joined Jan 2001
4,246 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by splatman
I'm shocked. Sailorman bashing Bush and the evil corporations....
. . . and yet another European agreeing with him!!
Viper Pilot is offline Find More Posts by Viper Pilot
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 09:48 AM
Brunswick, Ohio
BrunswickOH's Avatar
Joined Aug 2003
5,736 Posts
If only we had Democrats in office the world would be perfect, they are out to save me..The little guy...Oh, if only. Life will be so grand when we get some more Democrats in office, they care about me not like those evil Republicans. They want to destroy the world, give us dirty air and water, starve the elderly, take our medication, take our retirement, take all that rightfully should be ours. The only ones they want to help are the big evil corporations which don't care about anything other then evil profits.

Jim
BrunswickOH is offline Find More Posts by BrunswickOH
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 09:59 AM
God is good
Viper Pilot's Avatar
Banjul
Joined Jan 2001
4,246 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickOH
. . . . those evil Republicans. They want to destroy the world, give us dirty air and water, starve the elderly, take our medication, take our retirement, take all that rightfully should be ours.. . .
And then, there are those evil Democrats . . . .

Quote:
“Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” - Hillary Clinton
Viper Pilot is offline Find More Posts by Viper Pilot
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 10:10 AM
In Development Now
Indiana_Geoff's Avatar
Joined May 2005
445 Posts
The internet at some point will cease being totally free. Advertising models have not worked as well as was hoped.

Google is perfect example. It's a very rich company that (other than it's connections to the internet) get's to use an enormous infrastructure it didn't develop or pay for, for free. It is perfectly reasonable for companies that use this resource to have to pay for using it. Somebody is paying for what Google uses, who is it, and do they want to continue to pay for it.
Indiana_Geoff is online now Find More Posts by Indiana_Geoff
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 10:22 AM
Useful Idiot
Asturias, Spain
Joined Mar 2001
3,543 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper Pilot
. . . and yet another European agreeing with him!!
VP; I'd have a read of a selection of Muxje's post's if I were you. Many of the views he has expressed are fairly distant from those of the pinko liberal Europeans you love to chide. You might find that tarring with a narrower brush would be appropriate.
martin richards is offline Find More Posts by martin richards
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 11:01 AM
Choppa Nutta's Avatar
UK
Joined Jan 2002
1,030 Posts
yeah but americans are FAMOUS the world over for not being able to take critique of any kind, "your either for us or against us" and other simplistic arguments seem to be the US norm ..... mind you, france pips you guys to the post when it comes to being racist, ( only just mind you ) yes I saw that program about a new york drugs company experimenting on little black kids cutting holes in their stomaches to force feed them drugs never mind new orleans and all the other crap, watch the news anywhere else the world and you would see the US is itching to take over, to be the "world police" this whole thing about controlling the web is just another aspect of it, nothing short of appalling

"I doubt that the law allows that. Competing search engines can buy premium network access for themselves... and Google can do the same. Offering fast access to one and denying the same to another company (even if they offer to pay) seems grounds for court action."

like the little guy could do that .... it erks me that law and justice seem very seperate indeed

A thought does occur to me, seeing as the US can have such an adverse affect on rest of the world (where's that ? I hear you say ) I figure the rest of world should vote in the american elections so that religo christo nut cakes influence would be diminished from making the appalling decisions that they do .............
Choppa Nutta is offline Find More Posts by Choppa Nutta
Last edited by Choppa Nutta; Apr 28, 2006 at 11:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 11:20 AM
Cat Rack
MtnGoat's Avatar
Lyle, WA
Joined Dec 2000
1,478 Posts
Quote:
We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” - Hillary Clinton
When did she become our mommy?
MtnGoat is online now Find More Posts by MtnGoat
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 11:41 AM
You win again, gravity!
Muxje's Avatar
Rotterdam, NL
Joined Jun 2004
279 Posts
Quote:
It's a very rich company that (other than it's connections to the internet) get's to use an enormous infrastructure it didn't develop or pay for, for free. It is perfectly reasonable for companies that use this resource to have to pay for using it. Somebody is paying for what Google uses, who is it, and do they want to continue to pay for it.
Google provides an incredibly useful service, for free. They pay for this and make some money on the side, by making us look at some ads. The infrastructure is already paid for.... by us, the taxpayers and users of the Internet.

We pay a fee for Internet access, and I expect the ISPs to move bytes for that fee, not fleece the guy on the other end as well, who most definitely will recoup that money from the end users, i.e. us, the consumers.

But as long as there are no artificial barriers against switching providers or setting up an ISP, then I say let them try to charge Google, see what answer they get, and see how long they can keep their customers.

I expect that a few of them will try it, that they will receive a resounding "no" from the content provider, and that their customers will only put up with the reduced service if the subscription fees are similarly reduced. This will only work in places where consumers have no choice (and I am sure that some providers will lobby for anti dog-eat-dog competition laws to make sure we don't have that choice. But that is another issue).
Muxje is offline Find More Posts by Muxje
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 02:49 PM
God is good
Viper Pilot's Avatar
Banjul
Joined Jan 2001
4,246 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin richards
. . . You might find that tarring with a narrower brush would be appropriate.
I used a Escoda Light Ox Hair Highliner. That's the narrowest one I have. I purposely eliminated the feathers in an effort to be kind.
Viper Pilot is offline Find More Posts by Viper Pilot
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 02:54 PM
Registered User
Idaho, Boise
Joined Dec 2005
107 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAILORMAN
First, the assault on NETWORK NEUTRALITY. The very foundation of the internet is under assault. The only thing that keeps the internet from devolving into a glorified tv. Jim, you listening? Are you saving up your protection money? Or you gonna start charging a subscription fee?
It's ok chicken little, the sky isn't falling. These are in talks. I want to point out that Prodigy, Compuserv and I believe even AOL started out with these models... where are they now? The internetwork that we have today, is VERY different from the one we had 15 years ago, where you bought into a service, and had lots of fast stuff on your "service" but items outside of it, were slow, and usually expensive. I think AOL was the last one to pretty much end that way of doing business. I know you are trying to lay this at the feet of Bush, but I want to point out that it is a bipartisian group that is looking to pass a law for net neutrality. If it REALLY bothers you, don't subscribe to services that throttle speeds based on what they are paid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAILORMAN
It also represents a political setback for critics of expanding copyright law, who have been backing federal legislation that veers in the opposite direction and permits bypassing copy protection for "fair use" purposes. That bill--introduced in 2002 by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat--has been bottled up in a subcommittee ever since......[/I]
I think that Copyright legislation is getting out of hand, remember, most of us that post here, seem to be more Libertarian, than true Republicans. We WANT fair use. The problem, is that people that count on copy rights being defended, have a lot to loose, which is why they push so hard for tighter controls. It also means they want to err on THEIR side of the coin, not the other side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff
The internet at some point will cease being totally free. Advertising models have not worked as well as was hoped.

Google is perfect example. It's a very rich company that (other than it's connections to the internet) get's to use an enormous infrastructure it didn't develop or pay for, for free. It is perfectly reasonable for companies that use this resource to have to pay for using it. Somebody is paying for what Google uses, who is it, and do they want to continue to pay for it.
Actually, a lot of companies make it on ad revenue. They just generally don't get rich doing so. :-) And, just another issue with your post. The internet isn't free. I spend about $30/month to access it, so do many other people. On the other end of the pipe, Google probably speends hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions to have a BIG fat pipe into the internet. It isn't free. We all pay for it. Our money doesn't pay for that wire from our house to the trunk line. It is paid for in the first month. It is the rest of the infrastructure that it pays for. The companies are trying to double-dip with this pricing structure. The connection fees pay for their infrastrure.
Rifter is offline Find More Posts by Rifter
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2006, 04:39 PM
God is good
Viper Pilot's Avatar
Banjul
Joined Jan 2001
4,246 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnGoat
When did she become our mommy?
Quote:
I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president. - Hillary Clinton
I guess she "became our mommy" when the Democrats elected "them".
Viper Pilot is offline Find More Posts by Viper Pilot
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2006, 02:28 AM
Registered User
vintage1's Avatar
East Anglia, UK
Joined Sep 2002
29,687 Posts
Wheres the Republicans just take things way from you - like freedom and legal representation, 'becaue its for the good of the country (national security) becuase its for the good if the country (make the rich richer) or because they are greedy. In which case they find a way to take it away from you whilst it looks like its nothing to do with them.

Get real, government IS taking things away from you, in the supposed interest of the nation.
vintage1 is offline Find More Posts by vintage1
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Does It Matter Which Side Of The Upper Rotor The FlyBar Link On The CX2 Is Connected? Mike10538 Coaxial Helicopters 1 Apr 01, 2007 10:36 PM
Question Which motor is everyone running on their 450's? VBDave Mini Helis 19 Mar 23, 2007 10:46 AM
Triton's are on their way!!! Danny Troy Batteries and Chargers 4 Nov 18, 2002 07:40 PM