Slashdot Mirror

https://www.freepress.net/news...

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/...

https://gizmodo.com/nearly-eve...

Hope that helps. There are places that do polls so you don't have to, and what they show is a persistent, long term, high majority desire for net neutrality.

This 'well the internet was fine before' argument is so ridiculous. First, there's the Netflix problem, years before that Comcast blocking Bittorrent, and many more.

Second, think about what ISPs have been doing. They've spent a fortune lobbying Congress and state legislators. Another fortune spent on appealing to the consumers to vote against NN and/or tell their representatives to. Are you really suggesting these greedy companies are expending massive amounts of manpower and cash just on principle, even though they weren't planning on violating them? Come on man, that doesn't even pass the laugh test, and seeing a massive abuse coming and enacting legislation to prevent it is absolutely legitimate, particularly when the writing was so clearly on the wall (not to mention, in Portugal an ISP has gone ahead and started bundled internet with only some sites).

Is this modded insightful in the age old tradition of mocking the writer, or are people actually buying this bullshit?

It's a wonderful strawman argument, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

And AT&T blocking things is far from a far-fetched example.

https://www.freepress.net/our-...

They literally did this twice (from that article):

AT&T: From 2007â"2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such âoeover-the-topâ voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customersâ(TM) iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&Tâ(TM)s own products.

These aren't "the sky is falling" magical fantasy allegations. When companies are given the ability to act shitty and benefit, they will (and this will shock you) act shitty.

Hilariously "Net Neutrality" isn't even a new thing. The entire point of the telecommunications laws were to ensure that telecommunications systems remain neutral.

Go read the descriptions of "telecommunications" and "information service", if you still think ISPs count as "information service" then I don't know what to tell you. I guess you think that the magical transformative properties of routing packets is somehow not just a basic function of the telecommunications systems we use today and that somehow that same function acts differently now that it travels over glass instead of copper.

The internet has, was, and always will be a telecommunications service (just like it was when it ran on copper wires). But rich lobbyists bought out the FCC to claim that the magic of putting that same system on fiber and cable has transformed it into a totally different thing. I'm waiting for the explanation, but it never comes.

Just bullshit about "youtube does the same thing durr durr durr" or something about ISPs being businesses, as though that has some meaning to me that should allow them to circumvent laws intended to create a fair and open market. You say this stuff as though it has ANYTHING to do with the topic.

It's doesn't. it's meaningless.

So stop comparing a Title II style utility to youtube since you obviously don't understand the first god damn thing about the internet.

brand names for their products that mislead you

Ah. You think the very definition of "network neutrality" is bullshit. There was certainly a lot of people referring to it strictly as new regulation while ignoring that the Internet has been neutral as possible from the start. And if you twist words enough you can make a push poll mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean.

But no, Network Neutrality is keeping the Internet neutral with respect to protocol, location, service, and origin. That once you have an internet connection, you get access to ALL of the Internet. That everyone on the Internet is on a level playing field and that the infrastructure itself doesn't favor Gigantic Google's packets over my tiny home server's packets. This is how the Internet started out and it's a fundamental principle for how it functions and everyone expects it to function. The firewall of china and china's policies of blocking specific sites and services are clearly not neutral and they're doing their best to control the Internet and flow of information. Fuck those guys.

So let's say that Network Neutrality actually mean a neutral level playing field on the Internet. One where the ISPs didn't choose what you did with your connection, or where you went with it. Would you STILL be arguing against it?

The major use of net neutrality rules

Hold up. Legislature and regulation enforcing network neutrality is one thing that's very easy to fuck up and I've pointed out repeatedly that there is viable debate there, and network neutrality itself is another. Any US or Euro legislation will only have partial effect around the world. No one but NO ONE, including at this point YOU, has come out against network neutrality.

It's kind of like the difference between free speech and the first amendment.

The major use of net neutrality rules so far has been to prevent ISPs from offering free access to paying partners.

Wrong. It's to outlaw and prevent:

Comcast from blocking bittorrent.

AT&T fucking with VoIP to help their own business.

Comcast favoring Microsoft's 360 traffic by not counting it towards data caps. This is the sort of thing you're talking about.

Telecoms blocking Google Wallet.

These aren't some theoretical boogeyman that congresscritters are scared of and are trying to clamp down on preemptively. There has been a constant effort to push the boundary of what's acceptable behavior by ISPs and the more that markets consolidate and the less they compete with each other, the less effective public outrage will be at maintaining network neutrality.

It has NOT been used to shut down Network Neutrality violations like ESPN3 (or ESPN360.com). Although it should. This is also the sort of thing you're talking about with "offering (free) access to paying partners". (any access for ESPN3). And it HAS NOT been used to shut that down. Which is bullshit. It's a clear violation of network neutrality and would lead to the horror scenario of bundling the Internet like cable channels.

This isn't "free stuff because ISPs are competing with each other". They are CHOOSING what you pay for. The money is coming from you one way or another. But you don't get to choose NOT to pay for that bundled service. It's just absorbed into the ISP bill which goes up a little. Or worse, it's ISPs competing, not with each other, but with the websites they're supposed to be servicing. Gatekeeprs. Toll-road enforcers. The worry back in the day was that they were going to shake down Netflixs for a buck (who would then charge customers more). But now netflix is POWERFUL enough to tell ISPs to go get b

My point was P(pickup), not P(found). But you knew that.

If you really want to challenge my argument, instead of a strawman you should challenge me to provide citations of this (and similar) douchey behavior happening prior to the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order. If you did that, I would list:

* Major ISPs throttling Netflix, et al.
* Verizon stating on-record that they would like to charge services for better access to their subscribers
* Madison River (ISP) blocking vonage
* Comcast (ISP) blocking P2P applications
* Telus (ISP) blocking access to a website critical of them
* Shaw (ISP) charging a 'QoS fee' to subscribers using competing VoIP solutions
* AT&T blocking VoIP apps on the iPhone
* AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon blocking Google Wallet
* Verizon blocking tethering apps
* AT&T charging extra if iPhone users want to use facetime, instead of AT&T's competing product

No one would put up with a power company that charged more for electricity to power appliances that weren't also bought from them. And yet, when a company that is a combination of ISP and content provider decides to trollishly increase the cost of competitive content streaming, somehow that's OK? SMH.

You ended with a point about opening up more spectrum & increasing service (which I take to mean that the former would cause the latter.) I can't personally speak to the matter of opening up more spectrum, because I don't know how much spectrum sits fallow. I would be surprised if much did.

Lucky you, here's what you've been missing. You'll soon have another chance to experience them first hand.

https://www.freepress.net/our-...
Everyone talks about fast lanes, but it is actual blocking that scares me, especially for political purposes. First it'll be for piracy and of course the blocks will be broad. But there is no reason that $POLITICAL_PARTY sites couldn't be blocked or slowed down to dial up speeds. With voter registration mostly over the internet, certain bad voting neighborhoods can be blocked from the registration site as well.

Can we recreate all these problems for Ajit?

https://www.freepress.net/blog...

3) Prior to NN, the internet was fine.

No, it was not.

https://www.freepress.net/blog...

Yeap, totally didn't happen. ISPs never blocked or throttled anything.

Are you stupid, trolling, or being malicious? Do you not recall the whole Netflix throttling issue that brought this to prominence? Or Comcast blocking all Bittorrent (not just illegal torrents, the entire protocol)? Here's a list with those and a dozen more. It's very clear where the internet was heading without net neutrality in place

Then of course there's simple logic... you don't spend millions lobbying and buying ads to get a rule overturned unless you plan on breaking it.

So, they are actually making a law about it, as they should have in the first place, rather than a proclamation from an unelected regulatory body? Seems like that is exactly what *should* happen.

WTF? There is a law. More than one law. And the courts have already ruled that the FCC was following those laws. So stop pretending to be stupid. You already knew this.

Could you list the terrible things occurring in 2015 that both forced the hand of government to enact "net neutrality" and why it precludes returning to the regulatory environment of 2015?

You want them in chronological order? I mean, you could have just googled it for yourself. https://www.freepress.net/blog...

Here we go, and when this is over I expect you to apologize to the entire class for being such a dumbass...

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Ve

It still stuns me when people say stuff like this. But then I remember, maybe they weren't here, and didn't see what happened.

The net has always been neutral. From time to time an ISP would try to test the boundaries, and then we would stop them:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

2015 was just the FCC formalizing what we've had since the internet was first invented. The Internet only exists because it was always neutral. This is about breaking the entire premise of the internet, after decades of it working properly.

You think you can have meaningful competition in "last mile" for internet, any more than you can have it for electricity? Hilarious. Someone's going to start up a new ISP, somehow get right of way to everyone's last mile? That's your competitive marketplace?

"Oh but the local governments." I can give you another list of all the cities and towns full of people who can't get decent service at all, from any ISP, and then when they try to build their own, the big ISPs sue and harass them to stop them from doing it...

To quote from the posting above:

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

The court struck down the FCC’s rules in January 2014 — and in May FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler opened a public proceeding to consider a new order.

In response millions of people urged the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers and in February 2015 the agency did just that. Since his appointment in January 2017, FCC Chairman Pai has sought to dismantle the agency's landmark Net Neutrality rules. He must be stopped.

In the absence of any rules, violations of the open internet will become more and more common.

Don’t believe me? Let history be the guide.

link

Court testimony sure sounds like Verizon was planning on billing both ends for the same bits of data, and why not, if they could get away with it. Unfortunately, at that time, the rules prevented them from getting away with it.

The Internet did work pretty well before it was mistakenly reclassified as an "information service". Still, this wasn't a problem until sufficient computational power became available within routers for deep packet inspection. This sort of practice should never have been allowed in the first place, and in a market absent competition, abuse was inevitable. Once the technology was available, large ISPs began their assault on net neutrality, and they didn't stop until forced to.

Here is a record of known abuses, which will only be the beginning should Pai have his way. That list is almost certainly incomplete, and abuses will grow to be much worse now that ISPs have unprecedented power to extort both customers and third parties alike.

https://www.freepress.net/blog...

Claiming your ignorance of history is some sort of unseen knowledge is absurd.

here let me help you with a simple internet search https://www.freepress.net/blog...

There are many more examples but in all these cases the FCC did their best to step in. Now imagine a world where the FCC just lets telcoms do what they want. Look at the list again, expand it and imaging the new world we are looking at

Bullshit. There are plenty of examples of violations of net neutrality from before and during the period when the FCC rule went into effect (and that's a very tiny list... it doesn't include Comcast throttling Netflix until Netflix paid up, ISPs who block or throttle BitTorrent, all the "zero-rating" games being played by wireless providers and a plethora of other violations.

Take your astroturfing somewhere else.

one thing people forget about are protocols such as VOIP which kind of needs to have a priority over other protocols.

But that isn't what we got. Instead history demonstrates degradation of Vonage by Comcast because it competed with Comcast's own "triple play" (this was mysteriously resolved after a Comcast-Vonage agreement). Comcast's own VOIP service was prioritized over all other services, including competing VOIP services.

http://www.freepress.net/sites...

This image tells all you need to know about Cable/Telco promises.

Once you have a monopoly that has no competition there is no reason to improve service or product quality and every incentive to drive it down to as low a level as you can without people rioting outside your offices.

Establishment Republicans slavishly do what the phone companies tell them to do while pretending they care about freedom and entrepreneurship (their base likes these ideas, and is largely unuaware that the politicians are actually opposing entrepreneurship and innovation by helping big business squash competition)

Democrats win favor from young internet addicts by pretending to support a "free" internet, while actually doing something completely different; The norm for big government Dems is to increase government power and regulation over all aspects of life, and they are actually being consistent here while fooling their base. Allow me to point out using a left-wing site.... so I cannot be accused of being a Koch-schill... what's actually going on:

Obama said "The one good piece of news coming out of this court opinion was that the court did confirm that the FCC can regulate this space. They have authority. And the question now is how do they use that authority..." (the boldface in the quote is mine, not Obama's nor freepress's). After spending years denying that "net neutrality" had anything to do with regulating the internet, the thing the president likes about this recent court case is that it established an FCC right to regulate the internet.... now the only questions are "how much regulation?" and "who writes the rules?". Both political parties have members who want to "regulate" the internet (and get visits from lobbyists with campaign cash...) and both parties favor things that are bad for internet users. The idea that government can tell companies like AT&T or Verizon what to do with their own property sounds good to internet users who want to use that property without paying for it.... but those same users would be outraged if the government ordered them to let verizon use their homes as cell sites (or some other abuse of property rights). The idea that the telcos can do what they want and have whatever price plans they want sounds great to Republican politicians in DC, but they do not have to live with the virtual monopolies on high-speed internet access that many Americans face.

There's one thing "net neutrality" supporters should keep in mind: the wide-open internet came into existence and grew as it did without a "net neutrality" law, and we should all learn from Obamacare that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" is a VERY BAD idea.... ANY bill can have huge unintended/unforseen/intentionally-hidden side-effects.

I have an idea, tell someone who might care. http://act.freepress.net/sign/Internet_sti_love/?source=conf

I'm not sure why you're not getting modded up. Verizon is as much "Ma Bell" as AT&T is.

http://www.freepress.net/files/att_history.jpg

Err... yes it is.

Please do not forget that in the United States it takes about 25 years for a company which has been split up to, eventually, come back together again. So in ~2040 we'll be having this conversation once more. It's like a turd Möbius strip.

1) Who actually owns the media: (Hint: About 6 companies in the USA. Not too many more worldwide): http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

2) Who sits on their board of both these media companies and other major corporations: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2870

Bottom line: Every major media outlet is directly controlled by the people who own most of the wealth in America. Messages are strictly controlled. Real journalism has been banished to the blogosphere and that too, though still relatively free, is slowly being undermined.

Freepress.net has a lovely illustration of the history of the baby bells.

http://www.freepress.net/files/att_history.jpg

Here's a nicer graphical version.

http://www.freepress.net/files/att_history.jpg

No actually Comcast is operating on Local Government property (roads) using a monopoly issued by the Government. There is no privacy or rights involved. It's all Government endorsed.

In fact your local government could revoke Comcast's monopoly and hand it to some other CATV provider (cox, cablevision, time-warner,etc) anytime it wishes.

What is this goverment issued monopoly status of which you speak? Exlcusive franchise agreements you say? Don't you realize that they were outlawed by the Telecommunication Act of 1996? Federal law makes them criminal and there hasn't been an exclusive cable franchise agreement in the United States of America for 15 years. Are you just repeating something you heard from a friend? Where did you get your "facts"?

Which of course is why comcast generously bribes the politicians.

>>>Censorship can only be performed by a government.

Or a monopoly (phone, cable, electricity utility) given the power BY the government to censor.

I am with you on the bribery point. I think the collusion of big business and goverment is reprehensible and rampant. I don't think anyone missed todays news about former FCC Chairperson Magaret Atwell Baker becoming a paid lobbyist for Comcast-NBC just four months after she was involved in approving their merger. That is digusting and yet we sit here and take it.

link: http://www.freepress.net/press-release/2011/5/11/free-press-blasts-comcast-fcc-merger

But, again, what monopoly are you talking about? Do you not have satellite and DSL as options where you live. And if not, how is that any fault of the cable company? You might as well have said that Magneto and his rogue mutants are to blame as both statments are pure fiction and demonstrably false.

The is a huge groupthink for hating the cable company. Unfortunately, many arguments for this hatred are misinformation, not fact. If the franchise agreement isn't exclusive, if there are phone, internet and TV competitors offering products/services in the same area then answer me this (and let me apologize in advance for the yelling): How in fucking hell is that a monopoly?

Most major media outlets in the USA are owned by 6 companies...
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main?gclid=CMz5vrT5y6gCFchJ2godnlqPrw

and the boards of directors of these 6 media companies are also the boards of directors on most of the other major companies in the USA...
http://www.progressiveliving.org/mass_media_and_politics.htm

So you're going to get the news that a bunch of wealthy people want you to hear. Period. End of story. You want reality? Stick with the blogs until those too are corrupted.

You can sing on to oppose the merger and tell the FCC not to do this here:
http://act2.freepress.net/sign/att_tmobile

Accept No Substitute for Real Net Neutrality

Sign the petition.

Grr... opening sentance got cut

---

The New York Times reported on Monday that Comcast threatened to cut off Netflix streaming video unless the company that carries the traffic paid huge tolls.
http://act2.freepress.net/go/1081?akid=2071.9186247.v6FnQS&t=8

Speaking of Comcrap ...

From an email I receiver earlier today ...

--- 8http://act2.freepress.net/go/1081?akid=2071.9186247.v6FnQS&t=8

Earlier in the day, Comcast was exposed for trying to bar cheaper cable modems from its network — a clear violation of Net Neutrality.
http://act2.freepress.net/go/1082?akid=2071.9186247.v6FnQS&t=10
This is what a media monopoly looks like in the Internet age — one company, consolidating its media power to squash competitors, stifle innovation and price-gouge consumers.

Sign our message to the FCC: "Don't Let Comcast Kill the Internet."

We need FCC Chairman Genachowski to speak out again the Comcast-NBC merger and enact strong Net Neutrality rules to protect consumers from Comcast’s abuse. If the FCC stays on the sidelines, Comcast will turn the Internet into cable TV, where it gets to pick the channels, overcharge you for them, and decide what downloads quickly and whose voices are heard.

Comcast is the same company that wants to take over NBC Universal in one of the biggest media mergers in a generation. It's not just the Internet at stake here. It's the future of all media: television, radio, social networks... and our democracy itself.

Visit http://act2.freepress.net/sign/comcast_violations/?source=conf and urge the FCC to act now and save the Internet.

Thanks!

Speaking of Comcrap ...

From an email I receiver earlier today ...

--- 8http://act2.freepress.net/go/1081?akid=2071.9186247.v6FnQS&t=8

Earlier in the day, Comcast was exposed for trying to bar cheaper cable modems from its network — a clear violation of Net Neutrality.
http://act2.freepress.net/go/1082?akid=2071.9186247.v6FnQS&t=10
This is what a media monopoly looks like in the Internet age — one company, consolidating its media power to squash competitors, stifle innovation and price-gouge consumers.

Sign our message to the FCC: "Don't Let Comcast Kill the Internet."

We need FCC Chairman Genachowski to speak out again the Comcast-NBC merger and enact strong Net Neutrality rules to protect consumers from Comcast’s abuse. If the FCC stays on the sidelines, Comcast will turn the Internet into cable TV, where it gets to pick the channels, overcharge you for them, and decide what downloads quickly and whose voices are heard.

Comcast is the same company that wants to take over NBC Universal in one of the biggest media mergers in a generation. It's not just the Internet at stake here. It's the future of all media: television, radio, social networks... and our democracy itself.

Visit http://act2.freepress.net/sign/comcast_violations/?source=conf and urge the FCC to act now and save the Internet.

Thanks!

I don't think corporations should have free speech rights.

You want to allow the government to decide which ads to revoke; do you also want them to decide which news stories to revoke? If not then you can just expect to see more biased news, coming from even more concentrated corporate power. If so then you've just written a blank check for incumbents to spend on skewing all political speech in their favor.

Protecting incumbents seems to be the most common unintended consequence of "campaign reform" laws and proposals. It would make me suspicious about the "unintended" part, except that such reforms seem popular even among people who have no ulterior motives, just enough good intentions to pave a road.

If Bill Gates or the RIAA CEO wants to lobby, let them hire the lobbyist from his personal salary, rather than using the corporation's billon-dollar treasury.

That's great for people with a million-dollar personal salary. For people who need to band together just to buy a single commercial, being unable to do so safely is a bigger problem. I assume you don't intend to give more relative political power to the rich, though? So even aside from the moral case for freedom of speech and assembly, perhaps we need more consideration of the practical case against the unintended consequences of political power.

GOD HAS NOTHING TO FUCKIN DO WIT IT!

MAN DOES.

Science still won't cover Aerial Spraying in regards to Climate, nor will they cover H.A.A.R.P. and it's operations.

Maybe we should talk about the electronic sensors used, their electronics, their thermal considerations, their placement and location next to AC, Parking Lots, asphalt, Garbage Burning!

NONE of this shit is science if this is left out. If it's classified, it's left out. If it's a state secret, it's left out!

However I turn my attention to a more important problem.

Your clearly a (D) I can tell by your use of the word "freep" meaning freepress'ers , and which refers to users of the Freepress Website.

And because your still stuck in a (D) vs (R) mentality, the oath breaking, theft of elections, destruction of the monetary system, un-ending wars and the constitution will NEVER GET FIXED. FASCISM WILL CONTINUE . PROPAGANDA WILL CONTINUE

Fuck D's
Fuck R's

Turn off your fucking TV and get out there and SEE how fucked up things are getting!

The next thing you know you'll be agreeing with Katie Couric that the 40yr old WHITE MEN from the TEA PARTY are the terrorists!

Did you read the README HARRY doc? (maybe) Do you Code? (no)
what the fuck is your problem, your the one who has nothing substantial.

ANYONE FOLLOWING THIS ISSUE CAN SEE THAT.

and to everyone that don't like highlighted words and Caps FUCK YOU.

For those who want to sign a probably-ineffective petition, http://www.freepress.net/comcast

Why do you assume it'll be the security council that'll get involved rather than say the International Telecommunication Union?

What's that? You didn't realise the UN already does pretty much what ICANN does in another area very successfully?

"Frankly, I don't give a damn what China, Lybia or Iran think when it comes to running the Internet. And, if it comes to that, I don't want things like the German, French, or Canadian "hate speech" laws going international either. That sort of feel-good censorship can be even worse than the jackbooted variety, as the authorities choke off dissent while insisting it's all for our own good."

But you think it's okay for a single US state to be able to impose censorship for our own good I suppose?

http://www.freepress.net/node/45158

Eventually the appeals court realised this was stupid and overturned it, but the fact is a single judge in a single state of the US whilst US has full control of ICANN could censor whatever they wanted and did so for a damaging period of time for a web based business, and they did. More than once:

http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/02/us-judge-censors-wikileaksorg.html

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2008/03/us-interferes-with-travel-to-cuba.ars

"Honestly, I can't understand how any serious observer of world affairs, whatever you may personally think of the United States, can maintain that UN control is preferable to the current system. Not by any standard."

Your answer lies above, it is because any "serious observer of world affairs" who is not ignorant to the reality of US control of ICANN realises it's been doing a really, really bad job in recent years with everything from gTLDs to censorship of foreign domain names being.

I guess you weren't aware of what ICANN has done wrong in recent years which is fair enough, but if you're going to defend an organisation and speculate on what an alternative organisation would do wrong, you should at least make sure the organisation you're defending wasn't guilty of doing exactly what you're so concerned about- censorship.

This is only a minor accomplishment! Time Warner is still metering customers in Beaumont, and AT&T is still metering customers in Beaumont and Reno.

Continue to take aggressive action by contacting your elected officials immediately.

a) Raise their prices considerably on all their "unlimited" plans--sucks for the light users, who are basically subsidizing the heavy users who want to stream HD video and movies

b) Covertly start throttling back heavy users--sucks for everyone, since no one even knows how much they're being throttled and there is no option of paying a premium to escape it

c) Set download caps--sucks compared to the "free ride" heavy users are getting now, but at least it's out in the open with no throttling bullshit (and light users don't get penalized).

d) Everything stays priced the same as now, without throttling or download caps

Want to see what the future will be like with the proposed capping system? Step right up folks, and take a look at Australia's largest ISP. You get to pick from unbeatable offers such as US$28.85 for 200MB, and US$93.86/month for 60GB! Want more than 60GB? No problem. For the low cost of just US$110.94 per additional gigabyte, you can download to your heart's content! Oh, what was that? You want to watch online video? Don't worry. As part of this attractive offer, you will also have exclusive unmetered access to our partner network of music, movies, sports, games, and more! Getting excited yet? Seriously though fellas, those were not typos and this is not a joke.

Out of every Slashdot article I have seen in the past year, no single controversy has posed anywhere near this of a threat to rights online or free and open source software; and we've got an almost inconceivable "+5, Insightful" first post that effectively sympathizes with the offenders. At least take a moment to research before rushing to Time Warner's defense. Believe you me, if they are given an inch on this one, they (and all U.S. ISPs) will take a mile.

"Why does this really matter? ISPs in other countries are doing it, and businesses should be allowed to maximize their profit," you might say. Well, for starters, internet access has become a vital lifeline that is second-to-none. It has superseded all other forms of communication and media. Restrictive bandwidth policies do nothing more than perpetuate the digital divide by putting financial strain on the people who are already on the brink. This means that when Johnny's parents have home (telephone, or) cable service with a major U.S. company that offers package deals, they will likely opt to conservatively use one of the most inexpensive service plans. At this point, experimenting with things as simple as Ubuntu and Folding@Home become impractical or impossible for Johnny, unless he really wants to go out on a limb by asking for permission.

As of 2008, 5 ISPs control 56% of the U.S. market share. This means that half of the country will be coerced into using the unmetered media networks offered by their provider. What happened to the vision of net neutrality?

Here's the bottom line: if Japan and South Korea can figure out a way to provide blazing speeds at a low cost, then so can the United States.

P.S. For those opposed to the proposals, please contact your elected officials, or request that it be done on your behalf.

It is fine to talk about it here but nothing will happen; if you want things to change

fill out this form: https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=311

Fill out the form to tell your representative to step in and demand an investigation of Time Warner Cable's unfair Internet penalty: https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=311

While it's True many TW customers have no other option for broadband - they can still protest. Time Warner is a very large company including:

CNN
HBO
People Magazine
Sports Illustrated
The Cartoon Network
AOL Video
AOL Music
AIM
MapQuest
Moviefone
GameTap
Nascar.com
adultswim.com
pga.com
TheSmokingGun.com
superdeluxe.com

Boycott all of their other products. I am.

Contact your legislators and make your feeling known here:
https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=305

Join the fight against them here:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Sign the petition.

Complain here: https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=311

Join the fight, here: http://www.savetheinternet.com/

In many areas consumers have no option to Time Warner Cable for broadband. However, you can still protest. Time warner is a very large company including:

CNN
HBO
People Magazine
Sports Illustrated
The Cartoon Network
AOL Video
AOL Music
AIM
MapQuest
Moviefone
GameTap
Nascar.com
adultswim.com
pga.com
TheSmokingGun.com
superdeluxe.com

Comcast recently announced HD bundles that will go for $115 to $180 per month. When you add in what they charge for high speed Internet, you hit $230/month already.

The flaw in parent's math, btw, is that the $44B is mainly one-time investments. The visually stunning, if you like graphs, promote-our-site page is nearly content-free but at least the PDF link (first footnote) reveals that only about $2.2B (over ~3 years) would go to subsidize the on-going costs of end-users (scroll down the PDF to the "Lifeline/linkup..." and "Every child online..." sections. Oh, watch out it is a PDF by the way.

So, Comcast is already hiking their rates, by $60 to $120/month, and in 3 years that works out to $31.75 to $63.5B of variable, not one-time, income. True, the increase is on the TV side of things, but considering their new Internet bandwidth cap it is easy to see them offering an HD/all-you-can-eat Internet upgrade that would be in the same ballpark as their HDTV upgrade.

Comcast rate increases alone (without the need for infrastructure improvements, mind you) make the $44B government plan-so-it will-never-happen look like chump change.

Let me point people to the Save The Internet movement and encourage people to send a letter to their representatives with what they think. The template letter is as follows:

* Subject:. Required.

Dear [Decision Maker],

Please personalize your message
Countless Americans rely upon an open Internet in their daily lives. Our elected leaders must protect our basic right to communicate from those who want to take it from us. Please join with me and 2 million others to demand that Congress protect the free-flowing Internet from blocking, censorship and discrimination by phone and cable companies. This is not an issue of left against right but of right over wrong. To allow companies to interfere with our Internet access is a stark violation of the principles of openness and nondiscrimination that have been the bedrock of U.S. communications policy for more than 70 years. It's up to Congress to protect innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]

And will be automatically sent to your representatives depending on where you live. If you feel strongly, please help take action.

I would hold that the three estates model is a natural state towards which human societies will gravitate, without anyone ever consciously planning or realizing it.

Which is probably why Thomas Jefferson said that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

If you want to hear Bill Moyers talk about the importance of the free press---it's entertaining, he's a very good speaker, and you may learn a thing or two about how journalists talk among themselves and what they value---you can find him on http://www.freepress.net/conference/audio05/moyers.mp3.

Interesting distinction between the press and the press.

[...]

That's because Kutztown's fiber-optic television, phone and Internet infrastructure is a decade ahead of its time and is still one of the few municipal fiber-optic networks in the United States.

And though Verizon has picked up on the benefits of a fiber-to-the-home system and begun investing billions of dollars in the technology, it is systems like Kutztown's that showed how advantageous a FTTH system is.

Not only does Kutztown's Hometown Utilicom FTTH system cost less than most cable providers â" a customer pays $18 per month for basic cable and $35 per month for expanded cable â" but it also has capabilities that can make it relevant decades into the future. Customers on the system also get free digital and high-definition channels if they have a digital TV or HDTV.

First hatched in 1996, the Hometown Utilicom network in Kutztown was designed as a "talking" electric system, where if a transformer malfunctioned, it'd communicate with the main system and be easy to trace, said Frank Caruso, Kutztown's director of information technology.

But now, the system services more than 1,000 households with Internet and cable, Caruso said. He said the system covers the entire 1.5 square miles of the municipality and there are about 2,200 electric meters in the area, so Hometown Utilicom serves 49 percent of the people in Kutztown.

Caruso said the borough's total investment in the project has been about $8 million since its inception, and the services are available to everyone within the borough, though some people elect to stay with the original service provider.

The money invested in the project didn't come from a tax hike either. It came from a taxable bond that allows private companies to purchase and use the fiber lines and transfers from the borough's Electric Service Fund. This debt could be repaid if the Kutztown's town council decided to do so, Caruso said.

Caruso said the FTTH system doesn't just help the customers using it. He said once the system went online, the competition's cable TV prices split in half. People out of the service area pay about $53 for cable, but residents who have the choice of Hometown Utilicom or Service Electric Cable TV and Communications pay $25 for cable.

He said upfront cost is an issue for towns looking into a FTTH system, but since Kutztown's system was activated in 2002, the town has estimated its residents have saved $1.5 million in cable, phone and Internet billing. [...]