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).
"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?
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.
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.
"... 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
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.
His name is Carl Bergmanson, not "Bermanson". Come on, editors, what purpose do you even serve?
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.
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 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?
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.