It's called Tyranny of the Majority to trample the minority (or the one). Democracy is a lousy way to organize a government, especially if your goal is to protect individual human rights. Just ask Socrates of Democratic Athens, who was killed because the 51% majority didn't like him.
If things continue progressing this way, we'll eventually reach a point that existed circa 2000, where PCs could not be connected to living room TVs, because TVs could not handle the VGA signal that PCs were putting out.
Now in the present, our new HDTVs have enough resolution to handle VGA or HDMI, but if we start feeding the TV WebM videos from our computers, or the internet, the TV will say "I don't know what to do with that - I only do MPEG2 or MPEG4" and display nothing. You will have once-more created a separation between the world of computers, and the entertainment box in the living room.
>>>h.264 can't do VHS quality at 50Kbps, especially not if you include audio.
320x240 resolution at 50k? It's doable, although I admit the frame rate must be slowed from 30 to 10. But anyway the point I was making is that WebM doesn't come close. It needs 1.5 more bits to achieve the same quality as h.264 on a limited-bandwidth connection. It's simply not as efficient.
>>>This change will matter. And greatly, given enough time.
In time, H264/MPEG4 will be as open and free as WebM. This is a bit like a pyrrhic victory: Given enough time, say ten years, you may succeed in making "open source codec" the internet standard..... but by that point, H264 will be open source too. You could have won the battle by simply sitting on your ass and waiting a decade.
I couldn't give a shit if it's patented. VHS was patented. Ditto CD and DVD and LaserDisc and 3.5" floppies, but I made out just fine. They didn't stop me from enjoying entertainment, and neither will the use of MPEG4 in radio,TVs,blurays,et cetera.
Besides: MPEG4 won't be patented forever. It's only 10 years away from being public domain (like webM). All it requires is some fucking patience.
And finally: WebM is inferior. MPEG4 can create VHS-quality video at dialup speeds, and FM-quality at just 14 kbit/s. WebM doesn't even come close..... like dropping down from 1080p to 720p. I think it's a bad move.
>>>You really don't want that kind of power on limited bandwidth cell networks
Yes I do. I should not be prevented from loading VLC Player or Opera or any other 'free' program on my Phone (or PC or Mac), just because most users are idiots. Let's not downgrade our phone, laptop, and desktop computers to Lowest Common Denominator uselessness. Otherwise we might as well not have computers, if we can't run the programs we want to run. We might as well wrap chains around the computers instead, and bow down to kiss Microsoft's smelly feet : "Oh please sir, please let me run jEdit on my phone. Please master, please." Bullshit. If that's how "smart"... correction: dumb phones will be, then count me out. I'll stick with my open, not blocked computer rather than waste money on a phone that won't let me run the programs I desire to run.
Especially now that they switched to Lucid as their base and can run the same programs as Ubuntu 10.0 uses. Other cool free/liberated/open apps: VLC Media Player Firefox SeaMonkey (firefox/thunderbird/chatzilla/composer merged) jEdit uTorrent
"Zheng, Rivera, and Walsh have said Microsoft wants them to become more involved with the shaping of the homebrew scene on the Windows Phone platform, but ChevronWP7 will not be the way to do so. In fact, the trio has a meeting with Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 team next week in Redmond, and they will be focusing on homebrew as well as stronger protection of WP7 developer intellectual property."
You should have to pay to put your app in the store, but NOT to release it to the wild. Users should be free to download any app from any website, and install it on their Macs or PC or Phones. For either MS or Apple to block this ability seems rather dictatorial.
Having lived through an era where TVs and computers were not compatible with one another (except Commodores and Amigas), I'd rather not repeat that. I'd rather have the two using the same standards so I don't need to use two separate CRTs. Moving in a direction that makes them incompatible is a mistake IMHO
Even if WebM is completely "liberated" and free of patents, they'll still get sued by the MPEG lawyers (they said they would). And WebM supporters might still lose depending on the incompetence of the judge, who might think WebM is infringing.
You think there's a codec more advanced than MPEG4-derived 264?
It already has the ability to stream VHS-quality videos at dialup speeds (50kbit/s) and FM-quality audio at 90s-era speeds (14 kbit/s). Not sure how much more this lossy codec can be improved? I know technology advances but eventually you knock-up against Nyguist Theorem (or is it Shannon's Theorem) and can go no farther past that point. That's why Dialup has been stuck at 56k for over a decade. I suspect MPEG4 video and audio has reached that point too, and cannot be shrunk any smaller.
It would be very strange indeed if, in year 2020, radio is using this codec and television is using this codec and cable is using this codec and DVRs are using this codec and Blurays are using this codec...... but the internet did not. The web would be the odd man out.
"First achieving widespread use with the release of the Apple Macintosh in 1984"
The Mac was neither the first mouse-based computer, nor did it "widespread" the concept. - Mac sold around 100,000 units its first five years (mainly because it cost approximately ten times more than other computers). But Amigas and Commodore 64s, all with mice, sold 40+ million. Example: WorldWideWeb may have been first browser but it was Mosaic that popularized the web & made it explode for ordinary people.
Likewise I would give credit for widespread mouse usage to the C64, the most popular computer of its day. By the end of the 80s most people with mice in their hands were sitting in front of the C64 (or its more-advanced cousin: Amiga). Not the overpriced ($4000) Macs.
Yes I can in fact choose where I get my electricity. BGE or PPL or GreenPower or SolarCoop or TMInuclear or whoever.
why not just let the government be the ISP too?
That's a monopoly. A pro-choice solution would be better so customers can choose their providers for internet, just as they currently can with electricity and phone.
The MPEG working group patented those formats almost 20 years ago
Except for the Spectral Band Replication (SBR) extension for MP3pro and AACplus. That was developed and owned by a private company, so it's possible there are other components that are also privately owned, rather than MPEG owned.
that franchise is NOT exclusive. Any other company can come in and establish a franchise to provide service
Not true. At least not true where I live. Other companies are forbidden from entering and even when the City government tried to create its own Public CATV/ISP company, Comcast sued and won, claiming they had an exclusive franchise per contract. Which they did.
Now in theory somebody like Cox could win the contract when it expires (every five years) but in reality the politicians like the free money Comcast hands them. So Comcast always wins the bid.
NOT physically impossible. Where I like (and parents live) BGE and PPL merely supply the lines. The source for the electricity is wherever you choose. The same could be true for the internet where Comcast provides the line, and you can choose any ISP you want.
Or better yet: Let the government lay 50-or-so fiber optics (in a single 1cm thick cable) and then just lease those lines one-by-one to whoever wishes to market. Then customers would have upto 50 companies to choose for their ISPs. This would be similar to how government provides the roads, and customers choose to drive any company car they desire.
Oh crud. Here's the fixed version w/ proper formatting:
Paypal refuses transaction for porn or nudity. They enacted that policy over 5 years ago and even though they were sued by the US DOJ (and lost), that policy was still allowed to stand. As for theft: The Canadian RIAA (and probably US RIAA too) has stolen more from artists then any of us ever could. They owe billions in unpaid royalties to their artists.
"The claims arise from use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences. Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list", which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use.
"It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee. Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing over 300,000 songs. From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment." http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/
I'd rather keep a box full of gold or titanium, since they take-up less space, and they can't be devalued by the Federal Reserve's printing presses.
As for theft: The Canadian RIAA (and probably US RIAA too) has stolen more from artists then any of us ever could. They owes billions in unpaid royalties to their artists. "The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences."
"Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list", which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use. It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee."
"Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing over 300,000 songs. From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment." http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/
Here is what the FCC press release says: Rule 1 Transparency: "service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices "
Rule 2 No Blocking: "shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management." Rule 3 No Unreasonable Discrimination: "Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination..... (ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user's choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.)" "Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy "No Unreasonable Discrimination" Rule"
Mobile Broadband
"most consumers have more choices for mobile broadband than for fixed broadband. Mobile broadband speeds, capacity, and penetration are typically much lower than for fixed broadband, though some providers have begun offering 4G service that will enable offerings with higher speeds and capacity and lower latency than previous generations of mobile service. In addition, existing mobile networks present operational constraints that fixed broadband networks do not typically encounter. This puts greater pressure on the concept of "reasonable network management" for mobile providers, and creates additional challenges in applying a broader set of rules to mobile at this time. Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android. In addition, we anticipate soon seeing the effects on the market of the openness conditions we imposed on mobile providers that operate on upper 700 MHz C-Block spectrum, which includes Verizon Wireless, one of the largest mobile wireless carriers in the U.S.
"In light of these considerations, we conclude it is appropriate to take measured steps at this time to protect the openness of the Internet when accessed through mobile broadband"
The FCC has been regulating the air waves for over 76 years! Never had a problem with that.
The Artists and Songwriters Guilds disagree. To briefly quote: "As a songwriter I have a problem wrapping my mind around the concept that the FCC is going out of the Censorship business and into the protection of free speech. Wasn't it the FCC that banned Billy Holiday's wonderful recording of "Love for Sale" and Cole Porter's "I Get a Kick Out of You?" Wasn't it the FCC that agreed with Vice President Spiro Agnew that the recording industry was promoting 'drug culture' with songs like "Puff the Magic Dragon" and "A Little Help From My Friends?"
"Isn't it the FCC that gave us Janet Jackson's 'Nipple Gate' and drove Howard Stern off the air and onto Satellite radio? Didn't they ban Ice-T for Cop Killer? Fine Bono for cursing at an awards show? I could go on, but I hope this short list demonstrates the controversial history of the FCC's role in censoring free expression in music."
"The Electronic Freedom Foundation a strong proponent of Net Neutrality, has also expressed concern: "While we're big fans of net neutrality, we worry that the FCC may want to build its net neutrality regulations on a rotten legal foundation,"Title I 'ancillary authority' which is both discredited and unbounded. As we've said before, if ancillary jurisdiction is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, the FCC could just as easily invoke it tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the commission dreams up (including things we won't like, like decency rules and copyright filtering)." - - - So even some of the most fervent Net Neutrality supporters understand that turning over the internet to the FCC may be a problem for people who want free expression to survive and thrive in the wonderful new information medium that is the Internet."
Slashdot Mirror
>>>It's called democracy. Get over it.
It's called Tyranny of the Majority to trample the minority (or the one). Democracy is a lousy way to organize a government, especially if your goal is to protect individual human rights. Just ask Socrates of Democratic Athens, who was killed because the 51% majority didn't like him.
Oh. Well it's free.
If things continue progressing this way, we'll eventually reach a point that existed circa 2000, where PCs could not be connected to living room TVs, because TVs could not handle the VGA signal that PCs were putting out.
Now in the present, our new HDTVs have enough resolution to handle VGA or HDMI, but if we start feeding the TV WebM videos from our computers, or the internet, the TV will say "I don't know what to do with that - I only do MPEG2 or MPEG4" and display nothing. You will have once-more created a separation between the world of computers, and the entertainment box in the living room.
>>>h.264 can't do VHS quality at 50Kbps, especially not if you include audio.
320x240 resolution at 50k? It's doable, although I admit the frame rate must be slowed from 30 to 10. But anyway the point I was making is that WebM doesn't come close. It needs 1.5 more bits to achieve the same quality as h.264 on a limited-bandwidth connection. It's simply not as efficient.
>>>This change will matter. And greatly, given enough time.
In time, H264/MPEG4 will be as open and free as WebM. This is a bit like a pyrrhic victory: Given enough time, say ten years, you may succeed in making "open source codec" the internet standard..... but by that point, H264 will be open source too. You could have won the battle by simply sitting on your ass and waiting a decade.
>>>100% patent encumbered codec instead?
I couldn't give a shit if it's patented. VHS was patented. Ditto CD and DVD and LaserDisc and 3.5" floppies, but I made out just fine. They didn't stop me from enjoying entertainment, and neither will the use of MPEG4 in radio,TVs,blurays,et cetera.
Besides: MPEG4 won't be patented forever. It's only 10 years away from being public domain (like webM). All it requires is some fucking patience.
And finally: WebM is inferior. MPEG4 can create VHS-quality video at dialup speeds, and FM-quality at just 14 kbit/s. WebM doesn't even come close..... like dropping down from 1080p to 720p. I think it's a bad move.
>>>You really don't want that kind of power on limited bandwidth cell networks
Yes I do.
I should not be prevented from loading VLC Player or Opera or any other 'free' program on my Phone (or PC or Mac), just because most users are idiots. Let's not downgrade our phone, laptop, and desktop computers to Lowest Common Denominator uselessness. Otherwise we might as well not have computers, if we can't run the programs we want to run. We might as well wrap chains around the computers instead, and bow down to kiss Microsoft's smelly feet : "Oh please sir, please let me run jEdit on my phone. Please master, please."
Bullshit.
If that's how "smart"... correction: dumb phones will be, then count me out. I'll stick with my open, not blocked computer rather than waste money on a phone that won't let me run the programs I desire to run.
Especially now that they switched to Lucid as their base and can run the same programs as Ubuntu 10.0 uses.
Other cool free/liberated/open apps:
VLC Media Player
Firefox
SeaMonkey (firefox/thunderbird/chatzilla/composer merged)
jEdit
uTorrent
"Zheng, Rivera, and Walsh have said Microsoft wants them to become more involved with the shaping of the homebrew scene on the Windows Phone platform, but ChevronWP7 will not be the way to do so. In fact, the trio has a meeting with Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 team next week in Redmond, and they will be focusing on homebrew as well as stronger protection of WP7 developer intellectual property."
You should have to pay to put your app in the store, but NOT to release it to the wild. Users should be free to download any app from any website, and install it on their Macs or PC or Phones. For either MS or Apple to block this ability seems rather dictatorial.
THANK YOU. I was about to say the same thing. If you're watching Flash, you're watching MPEG4's H264 codec most of the time.
Having lived through an era where TVs and computers were not compatible with one another (except Commodores and Amigas), I'd rather not repeat that. I'd rather have the two using the same standards so I don't need to use two separate CRTs. Moving in a direction that makes them incompatible is a mistake IMHO
Even if WebM is completely "liberated" and free of patents, they'll still get sued by the MPEG lawyers (they said they would). And WebM supporters might still lose depending on the incompetence of the judge, who might think WebM is infringing.
You think there's a codec more advanced than MPEG4-derived 264?
It already has the ability to stream VHS-quality videos at dialup speeds (50kbit/s) and FM-quality audio at 90s-era speeds (14 kbit/s). Not sure how much more this lossy codec can be improved? I know technology advances but eventually you knock-up against Nyguist Theorem (or is it Shannon's Theorem) and can go no farther past that point. That's why Dialup has been stuck at 56k for over a decade. I suspect MPEG4 video and audio has reached that point too, and cannot be shrunk any smaller.
It would be very strange indeed if, in year 2020, radio is using this codec and television is using this codec and cable is using this codec and DVRs are using this codec and Blurays are using this codec...... but the internet did not. The web would be the odd man out.
"You have nothing to hide politicians if you've done nothing wrong," sounds like a good defense of wikileaks.
Incorrect summary?
"First achieving widespread use with the release of the Apple Macintosh in 1984"
The Mac was neither the first mouse-based computer, nor did it "widespread" the concept. - Mac sold around 100,000 units its first five years (mainly because it cost approximately ten times more than other computers). But Amigas and Commodore 64s, all with mice, sold 40+ million. Example: WorldWideWeb may have been first browser but it was Mosaic that popularized the web & made it explode for ordinary people.
Likewise I would give credit for widespread mouse usage to the C64, the most popular computer of its day. By the end of the 80s most people with mice in their hands were sitting in front of the C64 (or its more-advanced cousin: Amiga). Not the overpriced ($4000) Macs.
Yes I can in fact choose where I get my electricity. BGE or PPL or GreenPower or SolarCoop or TMInuclear or whoever.
why not just let the government be the ISP too?
That's a monopoly. A pro-choice solution would be better so customers can choose their providers for internet, just as they currently can with electricity and phone.
The MPEG working group patented those formats almost 20 years ago
Except for the Spectral Band Replication (SBR) extension for MP3pro and AACplus. That was developed and owned by a private company, so it's possible there are other components that are also privately owned, rather than MPEG owned.
that franchise is NOT exclusive. Any other company can come in and establish a franchise to provide service
Not true.
At least not true where I live. Other companies are forbidden from entering and even when the City government tried to create its own Public CATV/ISP company, Comcast sued and won, claiming they had an exclusive franchise per contract. Which they did.
Now in theory somebody like Cox could win the contract when it expires (every five years) but in reality the politicians like the free money Comcast hands them. So Comcast always wins the bid.
NOT physically impossible. Where I like (and parents live) BGE and PPL merely supply the lines. The source for the electricity is wherever you choose. The same could be true for the internet where Comcast provides the line, and you can choose any ISP you want.
Or better yet: Let the government lay 50-or-so fiber optics (in a single 1cm thick cable) and then just lease those lines one-by-one to whoever wishes to market. Then customers would have upto 50 companies to choose for their ISPs. This would be similar to how government provides the roads, and customers choose to drive any company car they desire.
Oh crud. Here's the fixed version w/ proper formatting:
Paypal refuses transaction for porn or nudity. They enacted that policy over 5 years ago and even though they were sued by the US DOJ (and lost), that policy was still allowed to stand. As for theft: The Canadian RIAA (and probably US RIAA too) has stolen more from artists then any of us ever could. They owe billions in unpaid royalties to their artists.
"The claims arise from use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences. Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list", which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use.
"It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee. Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing over 300,000 songs. From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment." http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/
I'd rather keep a box full of gold or titanium, since they take-up less space, and they can't be devalued by the Federal Reserve's printing presses. As for theft: The Canadian RIAA (and probably US RIAA too) has stolen more from artists then any of us ever could. They owes billions in unpaid royalties to their artists. "The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences." "Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list", which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use. It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee." "Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing over 300,000 songs. From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment." http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/
Quoted for those who can't see (Score:0) posters:
Here is what the FCC press release says: Rule 1 Transparency: "service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices "
Rule 2 No Blocking: "shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management." Rule 3 No Unreasonable Discrimination: "Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination..... (ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user's choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.)" "Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy "No Unreasonable Discrimination" Rule"
Mobile Broadband
"most consumers have more choices for mobile broadband than for fixed broadband. Mobile broadband speeds, capacity, and penetration are typically much lower than for fixed broadband, though some providers have begun offering 4G service that will enable offerings with higher speeds and capacity and lower latency than previous generations of mobile service. In addition, existing mobile networks present operational constraints that fixed broadband networks do not typically encounter. This puts greater pressure on the concept of "reasonable network management" for mobile providers, and creates additional challenges in applying a broader set of rules to mobile at this time. Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android. In addition, we anticipate soon seeing the effects on the market of the openness conditions we imposed on mobile providers that operate on upper 700 MHz C-Block spectrum, which includes Verizon Wireless, one of the largest mobile wireless carriers in the U.S.
"In light of these considerations, we conclude it is appropriate to take measured steps at this time to protect the openness of the Internet when accessed through mobile broadband"
The FCC has been regulating the air waves for over 76 years! Never had a problem with that.
The Artists and Songwriters Guilds disagree. To briefly quote: "As a songwriter I have a problem wrapping my mind around the concept that the FCC is going out of the Censorship business and into the protection of free speech. Wasn't it the FCC that banned Billy Holiday's wonderful recording of "Love for Sale" and Cole Porter's "I Get a Kick Out of You?" Wasn't it the FCC that agreed with Vice President Spiro Agnew that the recording industry was promoting 'drug culture' with songs like "Puff the Magic Dragon" and "A Little Help From My Friends?"
"Isn't it the FCC that gave us Janet Jackson's 'Nipple Gate' and drove Howard Stern off the air and onto Satellite radio? Didn't they ban Ice-T for Cop Killer? Fine Bono for cursing at an awards show? I could go on, but I hope this short list demonstrates the controversial history of the FCC's role in censoring free expression in music."
"The Electronic Freedom Foundation a strong proponent of Net Neutrality, has also expressed concern: "While we're big fans of net neutrality, we worry that the FCC may want to build its net neutrality regulations on a rotten legal foundation,"Title I 'ancillary authority' which is both discredited and unbounded. As we've said before, if ancillary jurisdiction is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, the FCC could just as easily invoke it tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the commission dreams up (including things we won't like, like decency rules and copyright filtering)." - - - So even some of the most fervent Net Neutrality supporters understand that turning over the internet to the FCC may be a problem for people who want free expression to survive and thrive in the wonderful new information medium that is the Internet."
LINK to full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-carnes/net-neutrality--can-we-tr_b_609392.html