Slashdot Mirror
Gubernatorial Candidate Speaks Out Against CAS
New submitter C0R1D4N writes "Carl Bergmanson, a New Jersey gubernatorial democrat running in the 2013 primary, has recently spoken out against the new 'six strike policy' being put in place this week by major ISPs. He said: 'The
internet has become an essential part of living in the 21st century, it uses public infrastructure and it
is time we treat it as a public utility. The electric company has no say over what you power with their
service, the ISPs have no right to decide what you can and can not download.'"
Well, at least consumers now have an obscure gubernatorial candidate, who stands no chance of winning either the primary or election, on their side. Guess that beats *nothing*.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
ISPs look like common carriers and quack like common carriers. It's high time we started treating them as common carriers (i.e., imposing net neutrality on them).
Having seen how government regulation works in New Jersey, I am not sure that Internet oversight would be any kind of improvement there...
"When you use electricity to power your porn, that porn doesn't pass through the electricity company to get to you. "
Uhhhhhh, broadband over powerline?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
At least you could appeal to the FCC, if your ISP made a mistake.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I see they are going for a newspaper look,
but the words
are so spread out
it makes my brain bleed
to try and read it. and it looks like
the articles are all smashed. together. and junk
Going along with your line of reasoning, the ISPs are distributors of child pornography and all of their executives should be jailed for life.
Just like the phone company absolutely has the right to refuse letting some calls pass through their switches if they want, right?
Finally, someone standing up against Computer Algebra Systems! Those whizzy calculators are destroying education in this country, leaving children mathematically crippled, unable to manage the simplest symbolic manipulation in their own heads.
Yeah, I didn't RTFS beyond the headline; why do you ask?
Broadband over powerline has negligible market share.
Regardless to whether this candidate wins or loses, he offered an interesting perspective that others are forced to listen to. In my worthless opinion, one voice, leads to several voices questioning whether its feasible which leads to someone sponsoring a bill that gets debated. Its a humble process that sometimes snowballs into something meaningful. I am not so cynical that I believe his idea will change that industry overnight but I am hopeful that it gives others in power or wanting to come into power ideas that might be more useful to consumers.
Last I checked, there was tyranny going on both sides of the isle, not just Democrats. In fact, Republicans cater to the rich and powerful, when in history was there ever a poor tyrant?
Great. What effect is this statement more like to have
- ISPs stop telling you what you can download or not download
or
- Electric companies getting ideas about having a say over what you power with their service.
Though its a breath of fresh air to hear a political candidate talking like this about the internet, I feel like its too little too late. The machine is already powering up, plus who listens to obscure gubernatorial anyways?
Take this sig and smoke it.
"... the ISPs have no right to decide what you can and can not download."
But the government does, right?
No.
"The internet has become an essential part of living in the 21st century, it uses public infrastructure and it is time we treat it as a public utility."
Isn't it convenient how politicians use this situation to exert more control over the Internet? (And now watch as thousands of geeks who have otherwise been staunchly against the government regulating the Internet line up behind this guy.)
He is not implying regulation of the Internet. He is implying regulation of the Internet service providers (to prohibit them from regulating the Internet).
The Internet is not their hardware, it is our network that we pay them to provision.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
My first thought from the headline was, "Why would they have a problem with Continuous Active Sonar?".
what exactly is wrong with this? the internet does use public infrastructure. in fact it works very much like electricity. paying by the amount of bandwidth you use makes a hell of a lot of sense to me, even though that's an unpopular opinion. i'd love to see a pay-per-kb system, but prices need to be much cheaper. the government could help with that while still keeping the internet open.
They wrote a story
typeset in the form of a seventh-grade paper
where only the page count matters.
But the trick never worked
as the teacher docked them anyway.
It was worth one more try.
You're conflating two different things and confusing the issue. Bergmanson is speaking of using government power to *prevent* corporations from engaging in censorship. You are implying that any government attempt to exercise the power to stop corporate censorship will itself be creating a situation where the government can and will censor the internet itself - something that is not exactly accurate.
I find it disheartening how, whenever there is a semi-serious discussion of using government power to stop flagrant corporate abuse, someone inevitably hauls out the "OMG! We can't allow the government to have that much power! They'll abuse it and our freedom will suffer!" While I certainly am concerned about government tyranny and over-reach, I fail to understand why we settling for corporate tyranny and abuse instead is the only possible alternative. American history would seem to demonstrate that it is possible to have a government that keeps corporations in check without becoming some sort of nightmare police-state.
This article is clearly about the dreaded Channel Associated Signaling. Better late than never that someone stands up and raises his voice against this atrocity
Way to white knight the cause Carl. I'd vote for him.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
His name is Carl Bergmanson, not "Bermanson". Come on, editors, what purpose do you even serve?
Would it kill you to define CAS?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Government-adminned Internet is just as bad as capitalist-adminned. The only way to return to how the Internet truly should be is to put it in the hands of some sweaty neckbeards.
Yawn. The linked "article" is just a press-release from a fringe candidate. I'll be impressed if I see a mainstream candidate saying something like this and it's not just in a press-release.
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
while i agree the op went too far in his rant, the wording does imply govt regulations. Show me any public utility that doesn't have a long list of govt strings attached. Roads and airports are public utility and you begin to have TSA and other 3letter wonders everywhere. In the age of terrorist and pedophile bogeymen the fate of the internet is sealed.
And when they found out it was a fusion reactor, boy were they embarrassed....
"That's right...I said it."
American history would seem to demonstrate that it is possible to have a government that keeps corporations in check without becoming some sort of nightmare police-state.
are you serious? Govt that keeps corporations in check? So why everybody and their dog whine about the citizens united and the money as speech thing? Ever heard of regulatory capture (plain as day in case of FDA, EPA, SEC)?
The DEA has to get a search warrant from a judge, then prove in front of another judge that you've done something illegal.
With Six Strikes, there's no due process, the ISPs are acting like the police, judge, jury and jailer at the same time.
It's like banning someone from a shopping mall because they're carrying weapons. You may not be liable for crimes they commit with those weapons but you still want to prevent it.
Phone companies can and do throw people off of their services for breaking their ToS.
If your consumption is much higher than the norm, they'll notify the police of a possible grow operation.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
"No sir," said the man, "I came back to see if you have a bronze politician."
ftfy
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
"No sir," said the man, "I came back to see if you have a bronze Politician."
FTFY
The problem is we have only two choices currently. Government control of the internet or corporate control of the internet. (And govt' control may just be puppet control by corps that write fat checks).
Who do you want controlling the internet, the FBI, who can send death squads to trash your house? Or the MPAA who can send the FBI death squads to trash your house?
"it uses public infrastructure and it is time we treat it as a public utility."
What part of "the internet" is publicly owned, outside of a few last-mile segments in municipalities that have elected to provide that service?
Last I read, the "backbone" of internet was owned by private companies. The ISPs are private companies. All of the tiers in between them are owned by private companies.
Or, is this to imply that Americans should consider all of that privately-owned property to be "public", because some foreign governments "own" the phone companies in their countries, and we can connect to them through our privately-owned infrastructure?
There are often terms of service for any utility, and part of those terms can easily be that you do not use the service of that utility to break the law.
So yes... electric companies *can* say that you aren't allowed to use it to power things when you are using those things to commit a crime, such as powering heat lamps to illegally grow marijuana in your own home.
The only thing that might be argued to be wrong with this is that there may not necessarily be any tangible proof that a particular ISP subscriber had anything to with a particular crime.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Phone companies can and do throw people off of their services for breaking their ToS.
AC was a little more specific than ToS. Can you name a phone company that ended someones contract for calling someone they didn't want them to call?
The most expensive, difficult, LARGEST, and publicly owned part of any direct connect service is the last mile. The ISPs must use public land or public airwaves to get to your home; they get permission from the public using public institutions (government which used to be by and for the people but that is off topic.) The same system which provides water, sewer, roads, phone, power - although some of those are too new to be public and instead are privatized at our expense (but we love to pay more so somebody can get rich off a monopoly, our water, sewer, and roads are next...)
ISPs didn't build up the infrastructure completely on their own, they had plenty of public (gov) support in doing it and they did a bad job of it too. ISP motives were to milk profit not keep the USA on top and so here we sit while the world advances. Asians are going to be video editing home videos faster on the cloud (500Gbps) while we get excited we can finally play 2 HD netflix streams at once and can't upload jack.
The public can demand anything they want because it is OUR land that allows the last mile connection to be possible. You can put your stuff on that land but if the landlord changes their mind, you are evicted!
If the people (gov) want your stuff, they are allowed to take it from you but must pay you for it; that is, unless they say it is a form of drug money or terrorism, then you lose it without due process and must prove your innocents. This loophole on fundamental rights never happens to corporations (cough, HSBC) but too often it happens to citizens. The government always had that power for the public good but thanks to the SCOTUS, Walmart can buy your house and kick you out by bribing your town council for the corporate good.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Whether or not ISPs can dictate what you can or cannot download should be directly related to whether or not they can be liable for you gaining access to illegal material. If they have no liability, then they should just bug off. If however the copyright holders can go after your ISP for allowing you to violate their copyright then it is in the best interest of your ISP to see that you do not.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The biggest problem with getting copyright law reformed is "How do you get a few million more Americans to care?". Thanks CAS for solving that problem & guaranteeing this will be a political topic soon enough.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
Imagine if the RIAA listened in on your conversation and one of the things that could get you banned from the telephone is letting a friend hear your music collection playing.
The United States began as an independent nation in 1776, and established its present system of government under the Constitution in 1789. Since that time there have been several periods of damaging corporate excess; The Gilded Age (1877-1900), The Roaring Twenties (1920-1928), and the one we're currently living through (1981-20??). That's 63 years out of the 237 years of the U.S.'s existence where the corporations have been arguably 'out of control'. You can quibble about details and dates, but the U.S. has not been subject to regulatory capture for the entirety of its existence.
So yes, I'm quite serious. Have you ever heard of competition law (aka. anti-trust law), the Glass–Steagall Act, or unionization (which worked much better when not kneecapped by Taft–Hartley)? Of course our government's record of reigning in corporate greed is far from perfect. Personally, I think we ought to eliminate for-profit corporations as they presently exist. But so long as we do have corporations and a government with the ability (although apparently not the will) to limit their excesses
we might as well try to get it to do so, at least until we can come up with something better.
Yes! Best misplaced homophone EVER!
And if his website weren't thoroughly slashdotted, I'd be checking out exactly what he stands for.
(NJ's governors tend to have earned their rep as things you wouldn't want stuck to the bottom of a shoe)
(no really, you don't want a hysterical corrupt hypocrite stuck to the bottom of your shoe)
(actually, it applies to both parties for about every office in the state)
It is pretty ironic that a gubernatorial candidate, is speaking out against complex adaptive systems when his democratic party itself is one.
But it's still in the market so it counts.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I was just wondering about this the other day. I was thinking, why isn't the internet more like a utility? I mean, it's large enough and it's got to the point where most people almost have to have internet access. No one should have a say of what I do with that access / bandwidth.
while i agree the op went too far in his rant, the wording does imply govt regulations
Any action from on high preventing the company from doing whatever the hell it wants is a "government regulation."
Some regulations are bad and pointless. Some regulations are *gasp* good.
At least you could appeal to the FCC, if your ISP made a mistake.
And they wouldn't give a shit.
At least I can choose a local provider (which is pretty good) in my area that doesn't subscribe to six strikes.
If the FCC was in control? Ugh.