Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Tells Comcast, Hands Off BitTorrent
An anonymous reader writes "Just a few months back, the Net Neutrality debate was all but dead. Luckily for fans of a free Internet, the telcos are their own worst enemies. Recent stories involving Verizon Wireless blocking pro-choice groups, AT&T censoring Pearl Jam's anti-war comments from a streaming concert, and most recently, Comcast finally admitting to using anti-BitTorrent filters. The Net Neutrality debate would appear to be alive and kicking, with Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) being the first politician to make a public statement sharply criticizing Comcast's actions."
Comcast Tesll Congressman: We Own Your Colleagues
Comcast has politely reminded this wayward congressman that in America laws are paid for by bribes. Comcast then offered the congressman a "campaign contribution", silencing his dissent. The system works.
As a Comcast customer in Virginia, I am glad that Congressman Boucher is taking a stand for net neutrality. Mostly because I need to get my share ratio back up.
www.purevolume.com/martyd
Am I the first to notice that Comcast may have removed the filter? Last night I started the Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon DVD download. I thought it would be done this morning, but I noticed the network switch still blinking like crazy. I logged in and checked the status. The download is done. I checked the upload status...
1286 K uploaded at a rate of 20KB/s. This is the first time in weeks I have seen upload speeds better than 0.0 KB/s and a transfered size larger than 0.1 KB. Since I am finally able to help spread Ubuntu, I'll let it run all day. Maybe I'll be able to upload more than I download for a change. Seeing any upload traffic after a completed download is highly unusual on Comcast lately.
The truth shall set you free!
Guys, if we want to win the argument on Net Neutrality, we can't keep confusing QOS with NN. If they want to indescriminantly block bittorrent, that's QOS. Saying that QOS runs afoul of NN means that later Comcast can say, "Look, if you enforce net neutrality, we won't be able to do QOS on our networks which means that internet tv will be bogged down"
NN is preferential shaping based on the source of the data. QOS is preferential shaping based on the type of data.
-Bucky
There is no controversy. He's probably the only guy up there that gives a damn about YRO.
At least, from my perspective. I'm not a huge user of P2P, my ire is more directed at the violation of the principles that founded this 'internets' thing. If we let company-interests direct the future development of the internet, we may as well give up now.
:)
What *did* annoy me, after the decision was taken, was that my difficulties with ichat over the last few months seem to be similarly down to Comcast policies.
I use iChat a lot to keep in touch with my family (all of whom have Macs, and 4-way video-conferencing can be pretty cool). There's several thousand miles between us, so this is one of the few ways we can actually see each other without major travel.
Until a few months ago, it all worked great. Now, I get less than a minute of great picture, and then everything breaks up. I was putting it down to transatlantic bandwidth issues, but then I tried it from work, and (lo and behold) had no problems whatsoever.
I pay (not for long, now though, the T1 arrives in 2 weeks) for the most bandwidth Comcast offer, and I cannot believe I average even 1% of that bandwidth. To have them limit me when I *do* want to use it, as a deliberate *general* policy of theirs, is infuriating. All I can do is cancel the service, and hope others do too. Eventually, hopefully, they'll get the message. Not everyone can cancel due to the monopoly they hold in some areas, but perhaps enough can to make a difference.
Now a T1 used to be a lot of bandwidth, but it's not so much any more (1.5Mbit/sec is pretty poor by advertised-bandwidth standards). I'm willing to trade off the small time-periods I actually can use that advertised bandwidth for the reliability of always having the smaller amount - it may not work for everyone, but it works for me
And so, Comcast lose another ~$200/month. Hopefully part of a trend, because won't anyone think of the network ? [grin]
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
He's a nerdy guy with glasses who's interested in technology.
This is Slashdot.
Seems nice enough to me.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Quick! One of the 7 stories kdawson posted this morning is related to ploitics! Everybody freak out!!!
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Congressman Boucher rocks. He actually does a great job of getting things done for everyone. It doesn't hurt that he is all about technology either. He's probably the main force driving broadband adoption in Southwest Virginia (my home). Some the most recent things he's helped get accomplished are a major fiber optic pipe to Lebanon, VA (it's slowly making it's way to my small town), that pipe has convinced at least two global companies to set up shop in Southwest VA. Northrop Grumman being one and CGI-AMS being the other. He does such a great job and is liked so much that I don't think he has even had anyone oppose him in the election for the past several years. And if someone has opposed him, he won by such a margin that they might as well have not shown up. (This is me talking, I'm too lazy to look up any stats, so what I just said could be completely wrong. But, he rocks so much, it doesn't matter. Watch out Chuck Norris?)
... that we actually cheer when a politician we put into office for once stands up and protects our [fill in civic right of your choice]? I mean, when did things go so bad? (rhetorical question) It's sad that we all have gotten used to a status quo where our elected leaders work hand in hand with big business and constantly screw us over. I don't care what political affiliation you have - just take a step back and look what's going on in our country. I do feel very strongly about net neutrality but must also concede that it might be the least of our problem right now. Nevertheless, it is one of thousands of important issues that needs to be addressed and coming next election day we all should do our part and 'kick the bums out' (not my quote - start hearing that very frequently on Hardball recently). Anyway, sorry for the rant, but I'm trying to make a point here, which is that we need to take a step back and rebuilt our democracy - it's ridiculous that we continue to desperately grasp for a few breadcrumbs from an administration that's blatantly in bed with big business.
I forgot to mention that he worked with Verizon and got a WiMax testbed started in my hometown. :) That was pretty freaking sweet.
I am personally against the current form of net neutrality. I think that government intervention is almost always bad. The ONLY regulations that should be passed:
1. All common carriers must allow other providers to connect to them on a naked pipe
2. All providers must support standard protocols.*
3. Providers may only prioritize data/bandwidth based on protocol, not orgin/destination.
5. No data/bandwidth throttling, only prioritization.
*I'd leave defining "standard" up to ICAAN, with these additional rules:
1. The protocol must be open - anyone can see how it works and get specs for it.
2. Usage or modification of the protocol must not be restricted by patents or copyright.
The government can't save you.
... the big ISPs are so short-sighted that they are their own worst enemies when it comes to things like this.
There is a war going on for your mind.
There is a simple solution,
If Comcast, Verizon, AT&T or anyone else blocks any content for any reason, they are (from that point on) legally liable for all remaining content. This is because the have made an effort to control the content crossing there service and by default must agree that all remaining content is acceptable.
Then remind there legal department that it means "If you keep it up, we will hold you responsible for all the remaining content including but not limited to all the child porn, child predators, etc."
In other words, they have violated the common carrier clause and thus are not protected from prosecution!
Where is a lawyer when you need one?
Thank God. There is an alarming trend among those who want to see a "neutral net" (a sentiment I agree with) to have "Dr. Government" fix it all. this is a slippery slope in plain sight; the idea of trusting the government to keep the net neutral doesn't appeal to me any more than having Comcast do it. What happens when the next elections come, and a new party/interest is in power? What happens when X lobby group petitions to sway the government's control of the network?
Fortunately, we have this convenient mechanism called the free market, where an outcry of foul play means an increased demand for competition. I realize this doesn't mean overnight those in Comcast-only zones are given an alternative, but over time, it is possible.
Now, when it comes to the infrastructure, the actual physical cables, etc., there's some room for talk as to whether the Government can have some limited intervention there, because we're dealing with interstate business and infrasturcture... but that's another story.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
What we really need is a truth in advertising law with some real teeth. I recommend public stoning for liars- doesn't matter to me if they are CEOs , politicians, or just advertising execs.
Just what part of "unlimited access" in the contract do these ISPs NOT understand?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Boucher was also one of the most vocal opponents of Clinton's impeachment, and has also been on record criticizing the excesses DMCA as well. He's one of the few congressmen that I'm actually glad is in in office.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
It seems to me that it's common knowledge that Comcast are bastards. I pity anyone who is unfortunate enough to live in a place where they have to get their internet service from Comcast.
Remember the time Bobby Boucher showed up at halftime and the Mud Dogs won the Bourbon Bowl do ya?
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
This is why net neutrality is a non issue. The carriers can't help themselves fucking off their customer base.
Deleted
I wish that weren't true.
sadly, we live in a facist state.
They're using their grammar skills there.
From the article, Congressman Boucher said that 'Comcast should "simply tier their offerings and engage in a pricing structure that allocates more bandwidth to those who pay more, and less to those who pay less."' Why the hell should I have to pay more for even more unlimited bandwidth? The issue is not just that Comcast is crippling bitTorrent, but that they are doing so to try to make their false advertising look legitimate.
...actions are not. It's so sad how badly the US Government is addicted to corporate contriubtions and Congress is too inept to actually do something about it. One member going on-record complaining about it won't amount to shit...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Indeed. We demand that our presidents' faces be "presidential," discriminating against those with "non-presidential" faces. Facial discrimination is the great unspoken tragedy that stalks this nation. Fight facism now!
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Congressman Boucher has been speaking loudly on various geek-friendly subjects for quite a few years, but his record at actually getting legislation passed suggests that he's carrying a Nerf-bat.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Boucher was also one of the most vocal opponents of Clinton's impeachment, and has also been on record criticizing the excesses DMCA as well.
Well, hey, 50% ain't so bad, all things considered. Strange such a great right-minded congressman would oppose the removal of a President who deliberately and directly lied to the American people. Does he also oppose a Bush removal? I support/supported both removals, for the same reason: if you are President, you can't lie to me, ever, for any reason. You may, if necessary, tell me you can't answer (national security, cf. Bush) or that the question is stupid and you refuse to answer (personal life, cf. Clinton); but you may not choose to answer the question with a baldfaced lie. So I think it's sad that Boucher doesn't see it that way.
I'd mod you up if I had any points, but I doubt many people realised the pun in your comment.
sadly, we live in a facist state. Fascism: A system of government that promotes extreme nationalism, repression, anticommunism, and is ruled by a dictator.
And this is related to corporate purchasing of congressmen how, exactly?
Perhaps your love for Boucher will end when you find out he approved the war on iraq and opposes restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
For those of you saying that a Tier based service system is "bad" because it will raise rates, look at it this way. Currently, you are NOT getting unlimited service, you are getting a soft capped service that is labeled as unlimited. The big issue is that you probably don't even know what that cap even is.
Now a Tier based service may "cost more for unlimited" but it might actually BE unlimited.
Simple Question: Would you pay $20 more a month for truely unlimited service of which you could even run servers off of, if you so choose?
I would.
Admittedly, Clinton shouldn't have lied. But, impeaching him because he lied about a BJ is a waste of everyone's time. Bush lying about an illegal war and causing the deaths of thousands of American citizens and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths? Yeah, he should be drawn and quartered for that...
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
And Nixon lied about some clueless toadies, doing something insanely stupid on their own initiative.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Fascism is sometimes defined as something more like what you might call Corporatism. In that sense the present day USA is very obviously and definitely fascist or fascist-leaning. Of course, this sense of the word is not the widely understood meaning, which is, as you say, totalitarian, dictatorial, agressively nationalist, etc.
I believe the term he meant to use was oligarchy which somehow gets confused with fascism over and over.
oligarchy: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=oligarchy
Surely you've been here long enough to realize that actual definitions don't matter in a political debate on slashdot. Or, you know, America for that matter.
If we actually understood the definitions of things, we couldn't call Bush Adolf Hitler. We couldn't call Al Gore Jerry Garcia, and you couldn't call Hillary a well trained irish setter. Really, where would the fun be in that?
Oh yeah, reasoned debate about the issues at hand... only losers do that.
Until then, I'm just going to be sad that a congressmen that I don't support financially, that I've never written or spoken to about my feelings on the issues, and whose name I hardly know - supports the people that do. It's exactly like a monarchy... apparently.
This isn't flamebait, dumbasses.
Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
Every time net neutrality comes up at Slashdot, a large part of the conversation is about what is NN and what falls under other concepts (like QoS). I can't help but wonder, if a community of nerds can't stay clear on the basic concepts needed to discuss this issue then how are governments expected to? If there are nerds who don't get it, then what chance do Alaskan senators have?
The UK government is threatening to introduce new legislation if ISPs *don't* play a more active role in fighting illegal filesharing.
"Please keep the government off my internet."
Funny you should say that seeing as how it was *their* internet in the first place.
if you use Comcast DNS servers, you are also randomly being blocked from visiting www.google.com and the block is due to a reset command being sent from Comcast. Using a DNS server not managed by monkeys like opendns.com allows you back on Google. This has been occuring to people since Comcast started playing with BT traffic. Try a search of http://www.google.com/search?q=connection+reset+google+comcast&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a/ to see some people talking about it. Since they have the capability to block sites this way also, why is the RIAA not suing them for failing to block Pirate Bay?
If we want to be able to have a conversation at all, we need to stop confusing QOS with fraud. QOS sets attributes in packets which are designed to establish priority. Fraud (in this case) means posing as the customer and sending a fake message, then lying about sending the fake message.
For example, if a telco decided to cut sampling rates on telephone calls from 8khz to 7.6khz for residential service to customers of other carriers, that would be quality of service (QOS). If, on the other hand, the carrier were to use their equipment to dial everyone who called you who was not a customer of the same carrier, spoofing your phone number on caller ID, and using a voice filter which made their voice sound enough like yours to be convincing, and telling them "Don't call me anymore. Stop. I don't want to hear from you for at least a week. Got it? Yeah, I mean it. Stop calling for a while. Don't take that tone with me. Just stop calling. Yes, this is me. Who else would I be? Now Stop Calling." And then told you that they would NEVER do such a thing. That would be fraud.
Since telcos are being trusted with our identities (phone numbers, IPs, etc), our privacy (which they'd never violate without a warrant, as we've seen), and the functioning, as generally intended and advertised, of the Internet, character means something in this context.
I hope this helps us get our terms in agreement, so that we can have an argument, or even a conversation, on NN.
Well, corporations are to 2007 what Jews were to 1933....
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Plutocracy.
So what is Ron Paul's view of all of this. I know he's a strict constitutionalist. Other than that, I have no idea what his tech
views are.
You're telling me there is a Congressman that wins elections in landslides, brings jobs to his area, gets things done for his voters, and isn't fellating corporate overlords?
Huh, all this time I thought that you needed to be in the pocket of big business to get into office and stay.
Comcast has politely reminded this wayward congressman that in America laws are paid for by bribes. Comcast then offered the congressman a "campaign contribution", silencing his dissent. The system works.
That is why F.C.C. rules should be changed to ban paid-for political ads on radio, tv, satellite and cable.
They should bring back the old rules where broadcasters commit on their license/renewal applications to a minimum amount of public affairs programming (which could included free political time) and limits on the maximum number of commercial minutesper hour. Broadcasters could pick their own numbers, but could be at a disadvantage at renewal time if a competing applicant wants to do more to serve the community.
What I suggest is not a restriction on free speech, only a restriction on what broadcasters can accept payment for.
Most of the corruption we see with our politicians relates to them selling out to obtain money for campaigns. Eliminating money from the picture for radio and tv would certainly lessen the need to raise money for campaigns.
We should go back to earlier much more restrictive rules on how many stations a licensee could own. I think we should go beyond that and require that some specified percentage (perhaps increasing over time) of stations in a region have licensees that live in the city-grade coverage area of their station. Having local licensees would go a long ways towards making broadcasters more responsive to serving the needs of their local communities.
Having a free and diverse press and broadcasters and a free flow of information is essential for democracy to function properly. We should not allow any corporate or special interest groups to own a sizeable chunk of our broadcast stations. These stations are supposed to be trustees of the public interest, not just cash cows for large companies.
How much are you paying for your T1? I am surprised you even bought it for residential usage. Unless you're sharing its cost or running a business.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
i just don't understand. i must be missing something. why do ISPs want to shape traffic? why do they want to give certain traffic more preference than others? I can only think of 2 answers:
1. make more money
2. manage unbridled bandwidth usage (worried about their infrastructure being able to handle demand)
Why not just create more tiered levels of service like the bellsouth/at&t dsl plans...just take it even further and increase the cost curve. you want dial-up? $5/mo. you want broadband? please select bandwidth:
64k down/up = $10/mo.
128k down/up = $15/mo.
256k down/up = $20/mo.
512k down/64k up = $25/mo.
512k down/128k up = $30/mo.
512k down/384k up = $35/mo.
1mbp down/384k up = $45/mo.
etc.
basically, why not just raise the cost of service? wouldn't that be just as simple and effective? unless, there is a third motivation for all of this...
3. screw your competitior's traffic
how can anyone think #3 is 'just what the internet needs'?
Well, much of the USA already is pretty much agressively nationalistic, so one down two to go... And from my point of view you are halfway with the other two.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Guy's been in Congress since '82. You'd think he'd have learned how things work by now.....
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Probably if Nixon had stalled for a time and then admitted some people in his committee to reelect had gone off on their own, and claimed he would clean it up, he would have been left to serve out his term. Nixon had several strikes against him that increased the seriousness of Watergate.
1. He was managing an unpopular war.
2. He'd claimed to have some secret plans that he couldn't reveal to fix the US's problems. There was a real spike in claims that the public would just have to trust its Executive branch, as so many things had to be kept secret. After 4+ years, more and more people were questioning why his administration couldn't reveal at least some more details.
3. He was arranging meetings with carefully picked members of the public and press, and trying to spin it so that these looked like spontaneous encounters where he had to field tough questions. That claim too was unraveling.
4. Corruption in his administration was known to extend to Agnew. It's hard to claim you were ignorant of acts by minor functionaries when one of them is your 2nd in command.
So there's two main differences between the Nixon administration and this one.
1. The press isn't asking the same kind of tough questions they asked Nixon.
2. The Vice President hasn't been charged with anything yet (probably because the press isn't asking tough questions there either).
Who is John Cabal?
Politicians only make statements lke this when an election is nearing. Makes it appear they are rooting for their constituents, long enough to get re-elected.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The government is already on your internet. They've basically given government-granted monopolies to the ISPs.
That's why I think the government should be able to enforce NN. It's preventing Comcast and other ISPs from committing legalized extortion. "That's a nice website you got there... it'd be a pity if your connection speed was slow..."
Websites pay for their bandwidth. I pay for my internet access for the website. Without websites, the internet is kind of useless for most people.
Without TV channels, no one would buy Cable TV. In fact, cable television companies pay to carry certain channels... and I pay the cable company for cable TV. (Or I would, if I wanted cable TV.)
ISPs already get paid, and websites already pay for bandwidth. End of story. Until they lose their monopoly, and make some sort of restitution for keeping other companies out of the game, then they can deal with it. If they can't take the sudden surge in bandwidth maybe they should reconsider their advertising and pricing schemes...
Point is, they made their own bed here.
Yeah Rick Boucher is one of my favorites as well. He's a Democrat but it's really hard to categorize his views overall (other than 'good') -- pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-technology, usually pro-free-trade when it's not bad for the U.S., supports enforcing immigration laws ... sometimes I wonder why he's a Democrat, but then you look and realize he couldn't be a Republican, either. (Although I suspect he probably has more in common with, say Olympia Snowe, than he does with Ted Kennedy or Dick Durbin. But then again, someone like Snowe has more in common with him than she does with someone like Don Nickles.)
Anyone who can annoy people on both sides of the aisle will always have my vote. Pity I doubt he'll ever go higher than where he is, but I think it's understandable and he's found a comfortable niche. We need more people like him.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
While the US flip-flops, and they go from sending Homeland Security in raids on "pirates" to actually protecting people's rights, the UK continues on it's merry way towards V vor Vendetta...
"Government considering telling ISP's to block P2P traffic"
I'm so tired of reading entertainment/piracy/privacy stories...
Bah, wake me up when the **aa and their cohorts implode.
One day soon, the moguls will still be making obscene amounts of money and drawing obscene salaries having finally figured out how to get into bed with technology, instead of trying to shoot it down.
They just won't be the same moguls as the dinosaurs that're there now hanging onto their obese empires with their last, dying breaths...
LOL funny. It took beating it out of them almost to get Comcast to admit what everyone knew they were doing. I wonder how many Comcast users will jump the sinking ship? If it were me, I would have worn a lifejacket the whole time. :--)
Stop by and watch a Christmas movie, commercial or cartoon! -->http://www.XmasDVD.com
The questions are being asked, repeatedly. The executive branch doesn't answer them, or lies. And when the press is lied to it no longer gives a shit.
Mexico has approved a reform to the current electoral legislation which does something similar.
The last presidential elections were so full of spots on TV that were more about bad mouthing the competitor than proposing solutions. A lot of money had to be raised and compromises were made by the competitors for sure.
The winner is the one who has the deepest wallet.
From now on, candidates can use only the government's paid time on TV.
The media is going crazy of course because they won't get a lot of money any more for the spots, and they're masquerading this worry as a "free speech" violation (because they won't be able editorialize the campaign coverage in any form)
It's not a coincidence that Dong Nguyen Huu has said that the Mexican electoral system is one of the most advanced in the world. Let's see how it goes.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it
Here is my speculation.
ISP pay each other if/when they enter private peering agreements. And the terms involving how much traffic you are sending out of your network to other networks. So in the past Comcast was making out like a bandit, they charge the user for Internet, the user downloads a lot and didn't send a lot, hence the asynchrous rates (huge download/small upload). And they get money from the ISP's to get their traffic to the comcast eyeballs (users on the end of a cable modem).
Now enter bit torrent, suddenly users are sending out data, at a slower rate mind you, but we all know these bits add up when your bitorrent client is an icon in the taskbar steadily uploading 384kbits second.
Suddenly Comcasts ratio of traffic with peers is changing and it's not making money hand over fist anymore. And it has to increase it's bandwidth rates in competition with other services like FIOS, which is getting pretty popular in the DC metro area (my home).
-ZiN-
Well, the randomly blamed for random societal ills sounds about right. Maybe the rest, too.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
... and that's why he got my vote last year.
That & he's all but said the current state of **aa vs p2p is sublimely stupid.
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
I really don't see it as off topic and maybe some people will ponder it. Sadly, the ISPs being of a limited number and thus easier to blow off the customers concerns (much like the two party system) will be solved much sooner. People are going to have to go through some very serious times to see why the political system needs some real competition before it changes.
We may be going through just such a problematic time when Britney, Paris and American Dance-A-Thon (or whatever the hell it's called) occupies less space on the front page of most "news" sites. I think we're a long way off.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
1. Prove Bush lied under oath, which is what Clinton did to get himself impeached.
2. Prove the war is illegal. Last I checked, if Congress authorizes it, it's legal, and Congress - including every Democrat - authorized it.
As a customer of Comcast I *want* them to prioritize packets....
Take three people - have one surf the web 8 hours a day, another play online games 8 hours a day, and one spend 1 hour a day looking for torrents to build up his DVD collection.
Who will use the most bandwidth in a month? Without a doubt, the torrent guy will. It takes just a few minutes to find and begin downloading countless gigs of files and it will run in the background downloading and sharing for as long as the user allows it.
MOST of the torrent related traffic is pirated crap. Sure, you get the occassional Linux distro and some games are starting to use it (like WoW) but, the general idea is that companies that USED to have to host files had to fit the bill for the bandwidth. Thanks to bitTorrent and the like, the bill is passed onto consumers.
A few years back, the number of pirates and heavy users were offset by a lot of casual users. A few years before that you had dial-ups and you paid for what you use. Now, casual users like my Mom can download movies rather than spend the $1 dollar to rent it at RedBox...and why not? It doesn't cost her anything.
Most of SlashDot doesn't care - because we're high bandwidth users. We download things, movies, music, OSes, and applications and we want our torrents to be fast! But the shared nature of the cable modem was built on the idea that not everyone is using their connection all the time. The whole unlimited, always on, thing is bad marketing, I'll admit that, and it's making the problem worse. But the truth is, no cable provider can charge the prices they currently charge and allow all of their users to be downloading 24/7 at speeds anyone would consider reasonable.
As someone who downloads a bunch of crap all the time; I don't care. If my download goes at 100k instead of 200k, I'll just keep downloading, besides which it's the latency that really takes a hit anyway. It's the web surfers and especially the gamers who find their connection unusable. As a priate, so what, it'll take 2 days instead of 1 day to watch my DVD of Spiderman 3. But the people who check their e-mail and surf to mySpace.com are going to notice the slow connection speed. The guy trying to play BF2142 is going to lag and suck.
The simple solution here, is to get rid of the concept of 'unlimited bandwidth' and have people pay for what they use. Then, I'd have a reason *not* to leave my computer on 24/7 downloading movies. Then, lots of people, like myself, would download less and we'd share our connections less. People who don't use the net much...would pay less, and they'd have better connections. People who pirate would pirate less and they'd certainly host files for less time. That means less seeds for crap nobody is willing to pay money to host (games like WoW, would have to go back to the old fashioned system of PAYING to host files for their customers...boo-hoo), most of what nobody would pay to host is ILLEGAL, and it represent a majority of the traffic anyway. So now the asian kid who just *needs* every DVD ever made - even if it means he has to pay more in his cable bill is going to find that there are less people willing to seed the movies he wants. Instead of downloading at 200k, it might crawl along at 75k.
Everyone wins, except the people who are using more than their fair share - they'd pay more, but it'd be fair - everyone would pay for what they use.
Corporatism was the system under which the Fascists developed guilds, purportedly to represent and empower the various economic sectors, but actually to assert unprecedented government control and intervention on those various economic sectors. We don't really have anything like that in the US, especially not when compared to other developed countries.
Last mile connectivity is not a natural monopoly. The solution to problems created by government regulation should be less, not more government regulation.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Bush lying about an illegal war and causing the deaths of thousands of American citizens and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths? Yeah, he should be drawn and quartered for that...
Ha! Yes, torturing Bush would be a satisfying irony. Sadly, even for Bush, I still wouldn't condone torture. Your statement is perfectly true, though: he lied, the war was illegal, and he caused huge numbers of deaths needlessly. He is doubtlessly the worst President in our history, edging out both Nixon and McKinley.
The Clinton impeachment was a gigantic clusterfuck, a massive political ploy, and underpinned by unadulterated bullshit. Still, he lied, so he should have been convicted and removed. 100% perfect honesty is the level of conduct I demand from my elected representatives. Nowadays I like the work he's doing, but I don't hold ex-Presidents to the same high standard I hold Presidents to.
Look! An Objectivist! How does it feel to be the scum on top of the intellectual pond?
Disclaimer: My comments mostly point at occurrences under Bush. I feel Dems and Reps are equally shady, under handed parties. Other than cut/paste the list, I didn't dig around for anything other than what I came up with off the top of my head.
Fascist Warning Sign #1: Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
If you're not with "U.S." you're a terrorist. Bills named the "Patriot Act" so sheeple feel warm and fuzzy.
Fascist Warning Sign #2: Disdain for the importance of human rights.
Suspension of Habeus corpus, illegal phone taps, "enemy combatants", black bag kidnappings, Patriot Act...
Fascist Warning Sign #3: Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
"Axis of Evil"
Fascist Warning Sign #4: The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
Bush has had the military deployed in combat for 6 years. His administration continues to suggest they will attack other countries if they don't follow our ultimatums.
Fascist Warning Sign #5: Rampant sexism.
This one maybe not so much. Our international talking head (Condoleeza) counts against #5 I would say.
Fascist Warning Sign #6: A controlled mass media.
Maybe not directly, but the networks kowtow in order to not be left out and really don't question much.
Fascist Warning Sign #7: Obsession with national security.
This one should be pretty obvious.
Fascist Warning Sign #8: Religion and ruling elite tied together.
In God We Trust.
Fascist Warning Sign #9: Power of corporations protected.
This one isn't just a Bush thing. This goes back decades.
Fascist Warning Sign #10: Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
See #9
Fascist Warning Sign #11: Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Suppression of global warming research, laws/court rulings protecting IP while minimizing fair use.
Fascist Warning Sign #12: Obsession with crime and punishment.
Bush governed Texas, the state with a record for most executions. Before his time began the war on drugs. Even individual states are guilty of this.
Fascist Warning Sign #13: Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Abrahmoff, Halliburton no-bid contracts, etc etc
Fascist Warning Sign #14: Fraudulent elections.
Who can tell. Maybe not directly, but supporters running local campaigns have passed out false information pamphlets in attempts to keep.
So that's what, 2 of 14 I can't come up with something right off the top of my head. Viva Liberty!
No sig for you!!
Seeing that the last moneymaker for RIAA/MPAA is income from fileshare lawsuit judgements, the last thing they'd want to see is fileshare traffic throttled. Time for RIAA to sue Comcast for loss of income.
you must be new here. I think you underestimate Slashdotters.
Firehed - Unfortunately, thanks to medical breakthroughs, common sense is not as common as it once was.
That a reason cited for Net Neutrality is that NARAL was initially denied a short code by Verizon?
You know -- a short code -- something that gives groups willing to pony up the money a infrastructure-level advantage over those that don't?
Support Telephone Neutrality Today -- Abolish Short Codes
What I would accept as a reasonable compromise would be enforced Network Neutrality for any consumer -- not any zip code, but any consumer -- where there is not 3 viable choices. Viable choices are broadband options where the slowest of the three best possibilities is at least 50% of the speed of the fastest choice. That way you're not forced to choose between 12Mbs cable versus 1.5Mbs DSL.
An interesting side-effect of this would be if one carrier bought up another one in the area and reduced the choices below 3, Network Neutrality immediately returns to all affected customers.
So how do I contact the congressman?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
While I've seen fascism misused in place of corporatism rather frequently of late, I haven't seen that as an actual valid alternate definition. But that was my point in posting -- just trying to call a bit of attention to the frequent misuse. I am sure that -- now that I've done my part by posting to slashdot -- the problem will be resolved. :D
That would definitely be closer; though I think another poster hit it on the head with a reference to corporatism. The reason I don't think oligarchy is 100% accurate is that it's not a /small/ group exercising control. To all appearances, at least, it's any sufficiently large corporation or industry interest.
Wow, so Rick Boucher thinks net neutrality is a good thing. This is hardly news.
Then we discover Boucher criticized Comcast in an interview initiated at the behest of a grad student who freelances for CNET. It's not like Boucher introduced legislation or even gave a floor speech in the House. As for the article's author, his journalistic credentials came immediately into question for me when he wrote "Until last month, the opponents of Net neutrality were doing just great. The issue, which had become one of national importance in 2006, had shrunk to a mere footnote in the annals of tech policy history."
Anyone who thinks that net neutrality became an issue of "national importance" in 2006 isn't living in the same America I do. Anyone who thinks the recent events mentioned in this article will elevate net neutrality into an issue of national importance in 2007 or 2008 isn't living in the same America I do.
I'm not saying it's not important, but there's no way arcane issues like these will ever be front-burner issues in the political world. They're just not enough voters who care about these issues to make them politically relevant.
I guess I don't understand the usage of this...or the danger of it. I mean, doesn't everyone want their country/nation to come out on top? Isn't that what a nation's government works for (supposedly)? I've not known many people of a nation that want to lose to someone else. What am I missing here?
I mean, it want the city I live in, to be the best. I want the state I live in, to be the best...I want my nation to be the best one in the world to live in. That would be nationalistic wouldn't it? I'm not a very altruistic person. I don't know many people who are...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Do you realize that there is no longer a habeas corpus law in the US? An American citizen can be held indefinitely without being charged. There is a case in the 9th Circuit right now about a non-profit company that the government spied on (wiretapping). They know they were being wiretapped because the government accidentally sent them a supposedly top-secret document saying that they were wiretapping them. When the lawyer called the DOJ about the document, the law firm was raided and the government seized the document. The DOJ then told the lawyers that they were required to forget that they had seen the document, and indeed they could not talk about it or use it in any court proceeding.
So, the only American citizens who have actual proof that the government is spying on them are not allowed to give testimony about it because the government claims that the "state secrets" rule protects them from having to answer for any of the government's own illegal activities. As the judge said: I feel like I'm in "Alice in Wonderland".
You can read about it here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/nsa-hearing-ope.html
The FBI has been using about thirty thousand "national security letters" a year to get financial records, communications records, computer information and even library records on American Citizens. They use a law that specifically indicated that these "letters" were only to be used to fight terrorism, but they are being used to terrorize innocent citizens who have publicly disagreed with the Bush Administration by belonging, for example, to a non-violent peace organization.
Now, we are being told that the telecommunications corporations that gave up private information on their customers in violation of the law must be given retroactive immunity. Naturally, we're being told this is to "protect us from terrorists", but these companies started giving up this protected information up to 7 months before the attacks of 9/11.
Here's one of the stories: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html
I could keep listing examples of the fascistic behavior of our government for the rest of today and into the weekend.
Brother, I think we're well within the definition of fascism here.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You want it to be, sure. But when your city/town/state/country fucks up you go "Oh shit, lets fix this!" not "Lets see what Paris is up to on the next channel."
Loving your country is one thing. Believing it can do no wrong is nationalism.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
The beauty of the system we have here in the US we can simply vote out the corrupted politicians.
As long as you can vote and those votes are actually counted by someone you have power over the rich and the corrupt.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Sounds like a pretty hardcore porn site.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It's not just the faces, it's all about the hair. When was the last time you saw a president who did not have great hair? This is an important part of politics, because healthy hair means a healthy economy. Also, presidents with non-presidential faces WILL lower troop morale on the battlefield. America needs good genes, you degenerate schmucks.
Anarchy in the UK!! ;)
As long as you can vote and those votes are actually counted by someone you have power over the rich and the corrupt. You can - and when you find replacements who are not just as corrupted (either to begin with, or soon thereafter), lemme know...
I've been watching the upload die after the download finished. It is now sitting at 0.0 KB/s.
The stats are 1452.5 MB at 0.0 KB/s for the upload portion of my Gutsy DVD download of 4336.0 MB at 21 hours, 57 minutes. It looks like they won't let you return an even portion back to the swarm.
I guess seeding is out of the question still. Sharing what you are downloading is now only partially functional.
The truth shall set you free!
Packet shaping is necessary because the internet is too slow. Killing connections completely, however, is uncalled for unless you know they are illegal. Not everything on BitTorrent is illegal.
There's a lot of confusion over terminology. Part of that is because one thing can be used in a back-handed way to implement the other. Nevertheles, here's a few terms:
Net Neutrality. This is a "political term" invented recently to indicate a state of not giving any particular endpoint preferential treatment, especially in excahnge for cash payments or to promote thye ISP's own serv ices over 3rd parties'
Fair queueing: one of several routing techniques intended to assure that all clients get their fair share of the available upstream bandwidth, especially when it's oversubscribed (true for most networks somewhere). A subset of policy queueing.
Policy queueing is one of several techniques to control the allocation of upstream bandwidth to downstream clients. Generally this will include providing a committed rate and burstability available when some clients are not currently using their commit.
Quality of service is a sort of policy queueing meant to provide different sorts of traffic different network characteristics or priority. For example, voip traffic may be moved to the front of the queue to provide for low latency. Other traffic may be dropped as required to allow the voip traffic to flow unimpeded when the network is congested.
Now to use those terms. QOS is not intrinsically bad, sometimes it can be a real benefit to the customer. This will be especially true if the QOS is applied on a per customer basis with fair queueing.
Unfortunatly, QOS can be used against net neutrality by defining the classes of traffic based on the far endpoint rather than on the nature of the traffic (perhaps in addition to more appropriate uses to provide plausible deniability). Use of QOS can also be a problem when it's primarily to hide the lack of adequate upstream bandwidth.
Those who oppose any sort of QOS do so primarily because they believe ISPs are more likely to use it for evil than for good. That is, that they will not implement it with fair queueing, will use it to favor their own services, double dip by prioritizing based on payment, and try to hide inadequate upstream bandwidth.
Many of the strongest supporters of gun rights still believe convicted felons shouldn't be allowed guns and many of the strongest believers in QOS likewise don't believe ISPs should be allowed anywhere near it.
WE aren't the ones confusing them. The ONLY people I've seen come out and confuse them were against Net Neutrality. The whole damn thing is just a red herring created by people who realized that there's no damn upside to an internet where our pipes control us. I think you can see this in the article, where the Cato spokesman says "if they don't vote with their feet, how important can it be?" While totally ignoring the fact that we have nowhere to go...
Mind you, that DOES mean that we have to do better about explaining how Net Neutrality is different (at least for those who understand what QoS actually IS). And there's also the point that the endpoints (the customer) is the one who should really be doing QoS in most cases to begin with, while the pipes should instead make available low latency services, or whatnot, with the CUSTOMER getting to choose how best to use that service.
A quick scan of the scrolling news items on his official website reveals your congressman is a master of pork spending. He's buying votes in your neighborhood with my tax dollars. Hardly worth applauding. that pipe has convinced at least two global companies to set up shop in Southwest VA. Northrop Grumman being one and CGI-AMS being the other. I'd wager there's more political shenanigans behind it than just internet service. Watch out Chuck Norris? Watch out America... there's yet another congressman spending our money to buy votes and make businesses into contributors.
Do you realize that you actually furthered the GP's argument?
Obsession with national security, an 'Us vs. Them' mentality, coercion via scaremongering..
whatever happened to 'all men created equal'? I personally found that a somewhat more tangible metric than 'in god we trust'
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
.....but won't calculate a user's total bandwidth per month for "privacy reasons."hmm
I fear the Y2038 bug
I don't get why people keep picking on Comcast; lots of ISPs implement traffic shaping and/or other restrictions for consumer accounts:
http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs
If you want unrestricted service, why not just pay for it?
This is utter BS!
There was enough money to either build fast wide "dumb" pipes with simple routing or reuse slow narrow pipes with expensive smart routing. Too many having chose the latter are now paying the price for their stupidity and want us to pay more to continue that stupidity instead of going back to the other choice and taking the hit for placing the wrong bet. They used copper which while mostly already in place couldn't handle the increased demands, so needed fancy ends to push it harder and fancy routers to maximize what they could get from it.
The smart ones placed fiber as needed instead of trying to fit a pound of communication into a ounce of pipe. They used simple cheap routers that just moved packets and dropped those that got there to late to fit into the buffers. They would try alternate routes within their network to keep from dropping packets, but sometimes even that doesn't help (mostly at the inter carrier links or the end user ones). They could get lots of those for the same money as those few smart maximizing routers. They didn't have capacity problems becuase they upgraded the ends when the demands got close to the capacity of the links and ditto for the routers. Any time there was a problem they could point that their portion of it wasn't at fault. The smart ones like net neutrality, they can take all comers.
The real problem is those gamers and VOIP users which depend on an artifact of the implementation of the internet. TCP/IP's goal is for error free reliable data transmission end to end. There is nothing about it being low latency. In fact many of the choices made in the design increase latency to get more reliability or error reduction. That is as it should be. Low latency is an artifact of a network that has spare capacity and is very error free. Thus congestion and errors do not occur and thus, the first packet nearly always makes it through without delay. In fact, when this happens, TCP/IP sends data down the link faster, if possible, until it start to see either errors, congestion or both. Then it backs off (slows the rate) to just above the onset of the occurance. For streaming, the latter doesn't happen, so the link looks like a low latency one. But that is an artifact of the conditions at the time, not the goal of the protocol.
Bittorrent, FTP serving or web traffic, in fact are highly tolerant of latency and will speed up like they are supposed to, to fill that idle capacity. If they reach the limits of their connection and still the network has idle capacity, the low latency artifact still happens. So the problem isn't bittorrent or its compatriots, its VOIP and gamers that are the problem. They are asking the network to do something it wasn't designed for. And even if they were immediately switched into a higher BW streaming network, if at any time the traffic passes through a congested normal TCP/IP link, the low latency will be lost. So if, for example, your traffic goes to Comcast, gets the high priority tag and then goes to AT&T which cooperates, but then goes to Lake Cooperative which doesn't and winds up at Rural fiber which also doesn't, but is one of those smart ones that always have idle capacity to the other end user, your friend, the latency may still be high and widely varying. So the higher payments for the "guaranteed low latency" still leads to a bad result. But you can swap videos with your friend using bittorrent with no ill effect.
So that QOS stuff is ineffective, if not all links subscribe to it. And it will delay the inevitable only for a short time as traffic continues to grow. The dumb carriers thought that they could get people who would not use what they paid for. Not many of them left. They thought the same during the POTS era, until teen aged girls started using it and later, dial up modems.
As for you, the solution is simple, get rid of the ISP broadband and go to dial up. Use POTS to talk to your friend and when you game, have your modem call his modem, long distance, if necessary. That latency will be low and consistent. Else you and he pay for that full duplex to the internet backbone at those much higher rates. Why should the rest of us pay our good money so that you can have low latency?
Regarding the US:
Check.
Check.
Check (although less relevant now than in the past).
Let me add a requirement:
Check.
An unelected president by any other name...
Yep, the US is fascist!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
How so? I'd be inclined to think exactly the opposite: the Jews were oppressed scapegoats, whereas corporations are oppressive scapegoaters.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That is why F.C.C. rules should be changed to ban paid-for political ads on radio, tv, satellite and cable.
BS! This is an abridgment of the Right to Free Speech. If I have a million dollars and want to run for a political office there should be no law saying I can't buy tv or radio ads. And if my message resonants with others nothing should stop them from also buying ads that support my candidacy, or oppose it. Banning corporate bought ads is one thing but banning a person's ads is wrong.
They should bring back the old rules where broadcasters commit on their license/renewal applications to a minimum amount of public affairs programming (which could included free political time) and limits on the maximum number of commercial minutesper hour.
Wrong again. No license should be required to broadcast, radio or tv. As a successor to the Federal Radio Commission the Federal Communications Commission was created in an ear of scarcity of airwaves. Today there is no scarcity so the FCC should be abolished and anyone who wants to should be able to broadcast. There would be no more Pirate radio stations as they could legally broadcast. All that would be needed was for certain frequencies to be reserved for emergency communications like fire rescue, ambulances, and police.
Most of the corruption we see with our politicians relates to them selling out to obtain money for campaigns. Eliminating money from the picture for radio and tv would certainly lessen the need to raise money for campaigns.
Opening up the airwaves would lessen the need for money for campaigns.
Having a free and diverse press and broadcasters and a free flow of information is essential for democracy to function properly.
There will only be a free and diverse media when a license isn't needed to broadcast.
FalconShould there be a Law?
time to boycott all Sandvine customers! it's their evil equipment that's responsible for this shit!
The beauty of the system we have here in the US we can simply vote out the corrupted politicians.
No, you can't. You don't vote pople out, you vote them in.
So, when you don't have any honest politicians...
100% perfect honesty is the level of conduct I demand from my elected representatives.
You shouldn't.
a) It's impossible to attain.
b) It's a fool's errand to even strive for. The world runs on lies (albeit mostly unimportant ones).
c) Your elected representatives should be, well, representative. Anyone who had "100% perfect honesty" would not in any way be representative of the average person.
What you should be asking of your elected representatives is that they are, basically, just like you. Now, I don't know you personally, but hopefully you'll agree that when some rude motherfucker starts blabbing about some consensual sex you had for no justifiable reason other than schadenfreude, telling a few lies about it to avoid embarassment to all involved, is a completely typical reaction.
Lying to send an entire nation to war, OTOH, with the absolute foreknowledge that it would involve (tens of, if you count the other side as well) thousands of people dying, is something I'd like to think only the tiny proportion of the population that are psychopaths would do.
I guess I don't understand the usage of this...or the danger of it. I mean, doesn't everyone want their country/nation to come out on top? Isn't that what a nation's government works for (supposedly)?
No, a national or federal government's job is to defend the nation and protect its citizens, but not as a nanny. "You can't do this, you can't eat that."
FalconShould there be a Law?
As long as you can vote and those votes are actually counted by someone you have power over the rich and the corrupt.
But can you vote, or will you be turned back at a roadblock or have your name added to a "do not vote list" like what happened in Florida in 2000. Even if you vote, how do you know the Diebold voting machine won't record your vote as a vote for Bush when you voted for someone else?
FalconShould there be a Law?
I did the same, er I supported Badnarik. As I had moved I didn't change my registration in tyme to vote. Now I'm supporting Ron Paul. And if I have to I'll change my party from "No Party Preference" to "Republican" so I can vote for him in the primary.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Apparently, we've been fascists ever since 1864 (when this motto was placed on coins).
"In God We Trust" was put on US coins and currency in 1956 with the passage of an Act of Congress. Prior to this E Pluribus Unum, meaning "out of many, (is) one," was used.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There are currently limitations on habeas corpus for aliens, not citizens.
The GP is right and you're wrong on this. All the Bush admin feels it needs to do is call someone an enemy combatant. This admin denied the US citizen Jose Padilla habeas corpus. CATO has called this a Dangerous Precedent.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'd love to try out Linux more than I have but until there's a better way to actually download the cd images, I really can't.
You can have a Ubuntu cd sent to you for free. It's a Live CD you can tryout Ubuntu before installing it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Do you realize that habeas corpus applies to all people, not just citizens? The Constitution of the United States of America makes no distinction between citizen and non-citizen in the Bill of Rights. To argue that non-citizens are lesser people, not worthy of the protections from the power of the government that our founding fathers fought and died to declare and preserve, is to have not just drunk the Koolaid, but gargled with it while the foundation of this country, the very document that guarantees your rights, is eroded right in front of your face.
More opinions...
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
I guess I don't understand the usage of this...or the danger of it. I mean, doesn't everyone want their country/nation to come out on top? Isn't that what a nation's government works for (supposedly)? I've not known many people of a nation that want to lose to someone else. What am I missing here?
You are missing the means to this end. If it took the murder of 100,000 people in another part of the world in order for yours to 'come out on top', would you be for it?
Nationalism is simply a process by which the population is distracted from the means by trumpeting the ends. Some people like to count the cost. It makes them feel better about their success if they know it wasn't achieved by fucking over someone else.
I'm not a very altruistic person.
Then you should probably consider "enlightened self interest". It tends to look at how both parties can get what they want while helping each other (altruistic?). That way when a bunch of people that your country has been murdering and oppressing for 50 years suddenly lash out and kill a few of you, you might think about how you can change your behaviour instead of asking "Why did they do this!!???? Boo hoo hoo" closely followed by "Let's kill them all."
Just a thought.
- Nothing to see hear.
Sorry, but your statement is not correct. I'm looking directly at a 1909 gold half-eagle and on the reverse side "IN GOD WE TRUST" is clearly stamped, with the letters G-O-D in a slightly larger typeface than the rest. "E PLURIBUS UNUM" is also stamped on the reverse, for reference.
So, "In God We Trust" has been on US coins since at least 1908, when the motto was added to the half-eagle.
... just not anywhere near the price you are willing to pay. The product you want is a business Internet connection.
http://www.comcast.com/business/WorkplaceProducts.ashx
$250 installation, year-long contract required, $100 to $250 a month and up, up, up depending on your requirements.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
If they aren't common carriers, why are they not liable for the DDoS attacks, the spam and viruses and all the illegal content on their network that THEY are copying?
Or is it that they have the *protections* of common carrier but not the *obligations*?
may be getting in the way. You'll notice most of the anti-NN comments are ones that make out NN is anti-QoS. You dom't see any pro-NN getting it wrong.
That may be a good place to start your questioning from.
Ah, if the corruption were only so simple!
So when will Rogers (in Canada) stop throttling BT to unusable speeds even when there is ample bandwidth to accommodate it?
But, when it comes down to it...if it is something needed for our survival....better us than 'them' every time. I dislike bloodshed, but, again...better theirs than ours in EVERY case.
"That way when a bunch of people that your country has been murdering and oppressing for 50 years suddenly lash out and kill a few of you, you might think about how you can change your behaviour instead of asking "Why did they do this!!????"
Who the fsck have we been holding down and oppressing for 50 years??? No one that I know of....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The main problem I have with nationalism is that generally the definition of who is a 'national' is either arbitrary, or politically motivated.
A lot of things that happenes in the second world war would not have happened, or would have had less impact if it wasn't for the nationalism involved.
As an example you might want to think about how the US put all their Japanese citizens in internment camps, because they might be the enemy, and were definitely not 'nationals'.
Or as more recent examples, the black/white segregation that still exists in large parts of the world, or the whole idea of islam. An Islamist can never be a US 'national' in the eyes of a lot of people.
And once you start down that road, I think it takes little imagination where it'll end. Most of the time this whole segregation happens over quite a long time period, and without people even realizing it's happening, so things that would've been considered barbaric 20 years ago suddenly seem quite normal. And that's what I think is the scary thing about it..
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
I have noticed since I switched over to FiOS that whenever I search for a bittorrent, or load one up to download... I lose my connection. I have to reset my modem, and then I can continue downloading one I've already queued. Have others noticed this?
Leave BitTorrent alone!
I can change the definition of a cat to mean "dog" , but that doesn't mean I'm correct in doing so.
I did not say anything about our government; I most certainly did not agree or disagree with the notion that it is fascist. I only pointed out that OP used the word fascism incorrectly. Corporations controlling politicians is not fascism by any definition.
So, "In God We Trust" has been on US coins since at least 1908, when the motto was added to the half-eagle.
1908 is some 44 years after 1864, when the post I replied to said "In God We Trust" was added. I don't know when it was first added but was there a national motto, other than "E Pluribus Unum" before congress passed the act in 1956 which made "In God We Trust" the motto? Sorry but this topic, "In God We Trust", really bothers me. I still recall experiencing a ruler forcibly applied to my hands for not saying "under God" when saying the Pledge of Allegiance in a public not private elementary school, I wouldn't say it because it was against my religious beliefs.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And my taxes paid for your infrastructure and your kid's education. This is how societies work. If you don't like it, feel free to start your own.
What scares me is I mentioned the meetings with the press and common people the Nixon administration faked, and less than 48 hours later, FEMA very blatantly fakes a press conference. I was going by the CIA's huge budget increases for 'domestic publicity modification' over the last few years, but here's a specific example, practically dropping out of the sky into my lap to prove my point.
Who is John Cabal?
Neither do I have information on when 'In God We Trust' was first added to US currency or coinage - I merely pointed out that the motto certainly was put on some coins before 1956, which was contrary to the statement you'd made in the post I'd first replied to.
My pointing out that fact does not support nor decry the use of the motto.
Neither do I have information on when 'In God We Trust' was first added to US currency or coinage - I merely pointed out that the motto certainly was put on some coins before 1956, which was contrary to the statement you'd made in the post I'd first replied to.
You're right, the act I cited basically required the phrase on US coin and currency. You said you have a 1909 gold half-eagle with it on. Are you a collector or is it something you hang onto? Years ago I collected both coins and currency, I used to have a few old bills with both red and blue seals. I've noticed lately a lot of new ones with these seals.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's a prop which I use to easily illustrate the horrific decline of the US dollar. A '64 silver Kennedy half-dollar is the companion piece, and since it is more recognizable, is easier to get people thinking about inherantly valuble money versus fiat currency.
Since the spot prices for metals change fairly often, my numbers aren't always exactly correct, but the basics goes as follows: a '64 half dollar has a face value of fifty cents, and contains roughly 0.35 ounces of silver. When silver is around $14 an ounce, a '64 half-dollar contains roughly five dollars' worth of silver... which is a decline of more than 90% of the value of the dollar since '64.
The half-eagle was an extravagant way to drive the point home: face value of five bucks, about 0.26 ounces of gold, contains roughly two hundred bucks' worth of gold, illustrating a total devaluation of the dollar since around 1913 of about ninty-eight percent.
It's a pretty disgusting situation, but those shiny old coins seem to help folks get interested enough for the short time it takes to explain the scam we're all on the losing side of.
Ok.
FalconShould there be a Law?
But, when it comes down to it...if it is something needed for our survival....better us than 'them' every time. I dislike bloodshed, but, again...better theirs than ours in EVERY case.
And if you happen to stumble across their minerals or oil while you are killing them to ensure your survival, ah well, just happenstance I suppose.
Who the fsck have we been holding down and oppressing for 50 years??? No one that I know of....
Exactly my point. No one that you know of. Nationalism (propaganda) has been 100% successful on your feeble mind. At least take comfort that there are millions of clueless morons just like you.
- Nothing to see hear.