Yea. For eons now they have been overselling their bandwidth, as too little of users were ever using their allocated 512kbits, 1024 kbits etc, making good profits from selling the resources they do not have.
It is a common practice with bandwidth and disk space on the net - almost all hosting companies do that too, but to a REASONABLE extent. The system is very underutilized, and you want to make it so that it is at least 50% or so utilized.
But, these faggots, AT&T and others, oversold their bandwidth WAY TOO MUCH.
And when the video thing hit the net, ordinary people started using their full bandwidth, telcos' shit started to hit the fan.
They are seeking out a way out of the problem. But, they DO NOT want to INVEST the money they made by OVERSELLING TO US. They want SOMEONE ELSE pay for fixing their shit.
If you do such a thing in hosting business, you would be lynched. It is UNTHINKABLE. You fix your own shit.
But these white asses, SO decreipt and so rotten in the ways of conducting business, ARE PUSHING OUT LAWS TO MAKE OTHER PEOPLE & BUSINESSES PAY FOR THEIR OWN MESS.
This is unheard of. This is way beyond corruption, it is plain rottenness.
$10 million spent overnight in advertising... Proportionalize this effort and see the size of the shit they did under the tree. Guess the amount YOU will be paying to clean it.
Let me bring another wonderful proposal for a bill, similar to the COPE bill without network neutrality in 'logic', to better our lives :
----
Senate should approve a bill to allow for privatization of defence
Government controlled military should be disbanded. The Companies should be able to go for, and win defence contracts for long periods of time, allowing them to produce/purchase weapons, recruit and train soldiers, do planning, maintain staff, respond to local and international threats as situations require. There should be no limit to how many such small defence divisions/commands could be created, in order to boost competition.
Also, "Hands off the military" - government should not regulate defence. Government regulation is bad for free market, for business. Free market will adjust and regulate defence better. If some business running a local defence force rebels and creates a local dictatorship, people will be able to choose another 'provider' of defence services then. If the rebels do not let people do that, another defence force could be called in to remedy the situation - no problem.
Some advantages of the privatized military are :
Better performance - Government is a bulky instutition. It is bureucratic. Taxes melt away in this structure. By privatizing the army, we will be able to optimally channel taxpayer money. That will allow us to reduce taxes around $30 per month per citizen or more. Local defence forces will be more efficient in performing tasks.
Competition and innovation - In a free market, defence and its business will thrive. Competition will drive prices low, also innovation will be much more abundant in matters defence.
Right to choose : The citizens will ve able to choose what company defends them. This way they will be better served.
Scalable ! : Free market will be much more efficient in adjusting what size and kind of military is needed where, so that it will be scalable to an extent beyond imagination.
Fire and forget : You dont need to do nothing as a citizen. Your local defence force will take care of all things for you. You just need to continue on your responsibilities... Move along, citizen. There is nothing to see here.
Of course, in a later date, some defence corporation ceo might come up and say "I have paid for this, this is my army. Im a jerk if i let them use my army freely. I have the right to take taxes from the local population, on top of the pay i get from the government, it is a free market, hands off the military" - but, oh well. It is a free market after all and they have paid for the military equipment. Also, regulation is bad.
Also it might be so that, when a local defence contractor is awarded a contract for 50 years, there might be no chance for the locals to change their defence company, legally, and they might be stuck with the company whatever they do. But oh. Its a legal right. Also, regulation is bad.
There is the slight possibility that some defence conglomerate would slowly rebel and take on the government for itself, however we should trust our businesses, for they are big businesses and it is a free market, and government regulation is bad.
So, as the same logic for COPE applies here, the wonderful congress, so wise in its wisdom and so correct in their judgment could not approve such a bill fast enough, if proposed, as they did approve cope in just 15 minutes.
But eh. Well, they arent representing the constituents are they ? You cant blame them.
If you accept the COPE without net neutrality bill as logical, then i would like to present one more bill that will better our lives, foster innovation and business in a free market environment, with the logic employed in COPE :
We need to privatize TRAFFIC LIGHTS piecemeal. Every traffic light at every junction should be contracted to the highest bidding contractor. These contractors should be able to decide HOW the traffic flows, and they should be able to SET PASSAGE TOLLS at each traffic light, junction SEPERATELY.
And in a free market environment, unregulated of course.
They should have the right to PRIORITIZE traffic for the HIGHEST payer, the less paying drivers should HAVE TO WAIT until the most paying, prioritized traffic have passed from the junction. If need be, undefinitely.
Old ladies, young lads in will have to wait in their cars, as they do not have the cash to pay at every junction (just like their websites under cope). but hey, its a free market. Middle class citizens will be arriving home from work much, much late, as they cant afford to pay at every junction, but hey, at least WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY BOTTLENECK IN JUNCTIONS.
Imagine people finding their windows 'disabled' at start of the workday because their copy was misidentified as 'ingenuine'. Imagine this happening right prior to an important presentation. Imagine a few hundred thousand dollars in deals lost.
Imagine people in suits. Imagine briefcases, papers, signatures. Imagine a new class action lawsuit...
For the first 1-2 minutes, it relaxes the mood and brain, the caffeine tension little bit goes away, and when you do not pay attention to the music anymore and it falls to the background - voila - youre on one magic journey. Thoughts flow in and away, like you are in the middle of a chorus.
But you gotta find a good selection to listen - preferrably an internet radio that does music for the workdays. One i listen to almost always is the Klassikradio. German, hamburg based. It plays wonderful selection in workday, nothing sleepy, nothing gothic, but right on pitch, and at nights it passes to a nice selections on blues, jazz and soft tunes. Give it a shot, you will be satisfied :
I put this reply in the wrong place, you havent probably noticed it. Im correcting here :
--
I get your point, but i do not get this ; what if they say 'this is our right, it is free market, and blah blah' ?
Can such delicate things be left to debate ? Can we privatize military and delegate it ? EVEN if we put forth regulations for privatized military, can we still risk it ?
Profit lust, greed, selfishness, always will find some seemingly-logical reason to defend its point. This sometimes comes out of pure greed, sometimes comes from ignorance.
If we make an analogy, if there was a debate about privatization of military, there would be hundreds of prominent figures in defence complex that were churning out a phletora of 'strong' reasons to privatize the military every day - like, "Optimal performance" "Lower taxes because of that" "Much more professional military" "Scalable" "Free Market" "Innovation" "Right To choose your own defender" "Hands off the defence !".... go figure.
I am a liberal, somewhat new ageish, and hippie in manners. I am a supporter of freedoms of all kinds WAY further than you can imagine.
However, being liberal in matters social, economical and ideological issues does not mean that one should ever let go of wisdom and caution - some liberties are way too dangerous.
Like the liberty of "Preaching for Jihad against the infidel" - there can be no such liberty. A liberty for ending liberties is a paradox and cannot be accepted.
Taking this view to the matter at hand, if the telco camp werent given that much 'freedom' of speech in a delicate manner like this, we wouldnt have a problem.
Similarly, if a "privatization of military" debate would EVER be allowed, you can be damn sure that some people would find ways and spend hoards of money to persuade the public and litigators to do it, and to a great extent they would succeed.
--
I get your point, but i do not get this ; what if they say 'this is our right, it is free market, and blah blah' ?
Can such delicate things be left to debate ? Can we privatize military and delegate it ? EVEN if we put forth regulations for privatized military, can we still risk it ?
Profit lust, greed, selfishness, always will find some seemingly-logical reason to defend its point. This sometimes comes out of pure greed, sometimes comes from ignorance.
If we make an analogy, if there was a debate about privatization of military, there would be hundreds of prominent figures in defence complex that were churning out a phletora of 'strong' reasons to privatize the military every day - like, "Optimal performance" "Lower taxes because of that" "Much more professional military" "Scalable" "Free Market" "Innovation" "Right To choose your own defender" "Hands off the defence !".... go figure.
I am a liberal, somewhat new ageish, and hippie in manners. I am a supporter of freedoms of all kinds WAY further than you can imagine.
However, being liberal in matters social, economical and ideological issues does not mean that one should ever let go of wisdom and caution - some liberties are way too dangerous.
Like the liberty of "Preaching for Jihad against the infidel" - there can be no such liberty. A liberty for ending liberties is a paradox and cannot be accepted.
Taking this view to the matter at hand, if the telco camp werent given that much 'freedom' of speech in a delicate manner like this, we wouldnt have a problem.
Similarly, if a "privatization of military" debate would EVER be allowed, you can be damn sure that some people would find ways and spend hoards of money to persuade the public and litigators to do it, and to a great extent they would succeed.
Gun Owners of America's Craig Fields puts it best:
"In a very, very strange situation, what we have is the necessity of government intervention to ensure a free marketplace of ideas. Whenever you see people from the far left and the far right joining together about something that Congress is getting ready to do, it's been my experience that what Congress is getting ready to do is basically un-American."
On the contrary, if the logic in the telco lines accepted, a phletora of likewise, slightly bit modified logic folows :
Why not, as i gave the example for it, privatize military force, awarding regional and international defence contracts to companies who will hire soldiers, make weapons and maintain them ? It would be much, much cheaper for the nations. Much more effective than cumbersome government meddling.
Of course, then it is just logical that later we would allow them to decide how the weapons used, when and where. Its just normal.
I guess you see my point. Some business can not be treated as equal of opening up a coffee shop in a town in midwest. Because they affect too many things in life, not only many people - economy, code of conduct, communication, the right to choose, what you know and what not and more, we cant let anything go THAT much privatized.
If it is rational to do so, then lets remove the anti-trust laws too, because they were put there with the logic i am defending.
Definitely, indian tech workers will be demanding more in the future.
This is something new now, and they are making considerable money they have never dreamt of before for their country's standards, but when the standard of living rises, so the wage demands will.
Well, if we follow the lines you are proposing, it might as well can be said that the companies who have produced the weapons for the army should be allowed to decide and regulate where they are going to be used, how and when.
Because, at its this state, the COPE bill is enabling telcos to do exactly that - despite being laid in public property, with the work funded by the public, and paid for use by the public.
I indeed believe that if something becomes too far-fetched in consequences should be no-one's property. The opposite is WAY too dangerous to risk.
Compensation ? There is no country in the world that heapload of taxes are not paid to be found squandered in shady deals and 'incentives' awarded to some businesses close to current adminstration. Just like what is happening with the bush adm right now, like the oil grab in iraq, some companies taking over some 'reconstruction' works without facing any competition, and so on.
Any compensation for these companies which put (and IF they did put) money in setting up public lines, can be arranged and paid back in a defined schedule over years.
Also, as Rep. Markey said apparently yesterday in congress :
Let me just make this point once again. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the creation of the Internet. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the development of the World Wide Web. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the browser and its development. In fact, AT&T was asked if they wanted to build the Internet, the packet-switched network in 1966. They turned the contract down when the government went to them. And so a company named BB&N, Bolt, Beranek, & Newman got the contract, a very small company -- not AT&T. They had nothing to do with the development of the Internet, but now, at this late date, they want to come in and to create these bottleneck control points that allow them to extract Internet taxes, Internet fees from companies and individuals who have been using the Internet for a generation. It is this absence of non-discriminatory language in the Manager's Amendment and in the bill to which I object.http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/0 9/1427218
Like "turning right from the 3D Browse button, then moving towards the Door-like Enter button, and levitating over the sinuzoidally-flowing search results"...
Too much waste of precious time.
Best is the way we have it now ; click, click and voila.
Even if there are not-public founded lines, all lines lie in public property.
Furthermore it is not a question of ownership. Not for something in this scale - This is something that effects ALL lives on the face of the earth, directly for approx 1 billion people (internet users) and indirectly for an additional 1-2 billion people. (their acquintances, family, friends).
Internet is something that is a world heritage now. It belongs to humanity.
Why ? Because it is something that is VERY important and far fetching in its consequences that we cannot have it any other way.
Dont you expect that those who can manipulate the congress this way now will be at the helm of whatever political and military power that is left, when and after a disaster strikes ?
What if they herd you into a slave labor camp for their own use ?
Hm. That explains some stuff indeed. I thought that republicans were the 'conservatives' in core, while democrats were the 'liberals'.
Apparently democrats are more like Scandinavian Social Democrats. Looking to the state of scandinavian people, i would say democrats are the angels, then.
Youre saying that there is more to the commerce & trade than to conservatism in republicans.
Over a day and a half of fury about how the internet is being sold by the u.s. house to the big bucks, my head now aches.
I f.ckin do not believe how you, u.s. people can ALLOW for such debate to even take place, such s.hit rule the agenda, and do not blow your congressmen's senator's ears off about the matter.
The biggest revolution, since the french revolution, the internet, is being handed over to the minority elite.
This is our 'thing'. This is the 'thing' of our times. This is one of the most important thing in our times.
Mod this comment to hell if you will, but, please, offer some explanation for the mental chaos state i am in :
Im not a u.s. citizen. So, im not biased. My father was not a republican, or a democrat, i havent lived with either party's supporters never in my life, or had spent some considerable time. Again, i have no bias towards any party.
I also am a world history enthusiast. I enjoy reading and researching what has happened when and how, and where.
Naturally i have done a good deal of research on u.s. history too, from pre-columbian times up to this day.
However, i have realized while researching the period that is from the 13 states' rebellion against united kingdom to this day, WHATEVER bad happens to the american people seem to have happened in the periods when conservatives, (later republicans) are in power.
I wont go into long-past early independence times now, but citing from near past, the neverending vietnam war that has become a mess because of nixon, and the rep. senate, the nixon himself as a mess, incapacity of reagan to resolve the libya issue, incapacity of senior bush with iraq, the horrible, horrible issue going on in the veil of junior bush's 'war against terror', with american lives being lost increasingly day by day, american citizens losing their individual rights day by day, and now, the internet is good as gone, again with a republican senate, and ALL of the time, the republican 'representatives' do little to represent the 'traditional values' of the american people that voted for them, but do EXCEEDINGLY WELL in protecting and promoting the interests of minority wealth groups at the expense of the voters' rights and welfare.
I am baffled at this point :
The republican party seems to capitalize on 'traditional and good american values' almost EVERY election, get elected, then do practically NOTHING for preserving those values, instead they do ANYTHING that is neccessary to channel more wealth to some minority wealth group, even if it means creating new wars in remote, in places that seem godforsaken and forgotten to american people, and do this with very lame excuses, american lives, money, rights get lost, but, a new election comes up, AND THE CYCLE REPEATS ITSELF !!!!!!
This is what i do not understand, WHY DO these people REPEATEDLY vote for these people that do everything to harm them ?!???
As the Telcos got what they wanted to get to do with internet, i suspect that almost all of us will be vying for the freedom and equal opportunity of the internet in china.
Google should do wise to stay in china, as the thing closest to internet as we know it will only exist in china after some 6-12 months, thanks to 'Telecommunications OPPORTUNITY' act.
What "opportunity" this is i wonder... Opportunity to f.ck up the biggest technological&international revolutiuon in the history of the world ?
Slashdot Mirror
Yea. For eons now they have been overselling their bandwidth, as too little of users were ever using their allocated 512kbits, 1024 kbits etc, making good profits from selling the resources they do not have.
It is a common practice with bandwidth and disk space on the net - almost all hosting companies do that too, but to a REASONABLE extent. The system is very underutilized, and you want to make it so that it is at least 50% or so utilized.
But, these faggots, AT&T and others, oversold their bandwidth WAY TOO MUCH.
And when the video thing hit the net, ordinary people started using their full bandwidth, telcos' shit started to hit the fan.
They are seeking out a way out of the problem. But, they DO NOT want to INVEST the money they made by OVERSELLING TO US. They want SOMEONE ELSE pay for fixing their shit.
If you do such a thing in hosting business, you would be lynched. It is UNTHINKABLE. You fix your own shit.
But these white asses, SO decreipt and so rotten in the ways of conducting business, ARE PUSHING OUT LAWS TO MAKE OTHER PEOPLE & BUSINESSES PAY FOR THEIR OWN MESS.
This is unheard of. This is way beyond corruption, it is plain rottenness.
$10 million spent overnight in advertising... Proportionalize this effort and see the size of the shit they did under the tree. Guess the amount YOU will be paying to clean it.
Let me bring another wonderful proposal for a bill, similar to the COPE bill without network neutrality in 'logic', to better our lives :
----
Senate should approve a bill to allow for privatization of defence
Government controlled military should be disbanded. The Companies should be able to go for, and win defence contracts for long periods of time, allowing them to produce/purchase weapons, recruit and train soldiers, do planning, maintain staff, respond to local and international threats as situations require. There should be no limit to how many such small defence divisions/commands could be created, in order to boost competition.
Also, "Hands off the military" - government should not regulate defence. Government regulation is bad for free market, for business. Free market will adjust and regulate defence better. If some business running a local defence force rebels and creates a local dictatorship, people will be able to choose another 'provider' of defence services then. If the rebels do not let people do that, another defence force could be called in to remedy the situation - no problem.
Some advantages of the privatized military are :
Better performance - Government is a bulky instutition. It is bureucratic. Taxes melt away in this structure. By privatizing the army, we will be able to optimally channel taxpayer money. That will allow us to reduce taxes around $30 per month per citizen or more. Local defence forces will be more efficient in performing tasks.
Competition and innovation - In a free market, defence and its business will thrive. Competition will drive prices low, also innovation will be much more abundant in matters defence.
Right to choose : The citizens will ve able to choose what company defends them. This way they will be better served.
Scalable ! : Free market will be much more efficient in adjusting what size and kind of military is needed where, so that it will be scalable to an extent beyond imagination.
Fire and forget : You dont need to do nothing as a citizen. Your local defence force will take care of all things for you. You just need to continue on your responsibilities... Move along, citizen. There is nothing to see here.
Of course, in a later date, some defence corporation ceo might come up and say "I have paid for this, this is my army. Im a jerk if i let them use my army freely. I have the right to take taxes from the local population, on top of the pay i get from the government, it is a free market, hands off the military" - but, oh well. It is a free market after all and they have paid for the military equipment. Also, regulation is bad.
Also it might be so that, when a local defence contractor is awarded a contract for 50 years, there might be no chance for the locals to change their defence company, legally, and they might be stuck with the company whatever they do. But oh. Its a legal right. Also, regulation is bad.
There is the slight possibility that some defence conglomerate would slowly rebel and take on the government for itself, however we should trust our businesses, for they are big businesses and it is a free market, and government regulation is bad.
So, as the same logic for COPE applies here, the wonderful congress, so wise in its wisdom and so correct in their judgment could not approve such a bill fast enough, if proposed, as they did approve cope in just 15 minutes.
But eh. Well, they arent representing the constituents are they ? You cant blame them.
If you accept the COPE without net neutrality bill as logical, then i would like to present one more bill that will better our lives, foster innovation and business in a free market environment, with the logic employed in COPE :
We need to privatize TRAFFIC LIGHTS piecemeal. Every traffic light at every junction should be contracted to the highest bidding contractor. These contractors should be able to decide HOW the traffic flows, and they should be able to SET PASSAGE TOLLS at each traffic light, junction SEPERATELY.
And in a free market environment, unregulated of course.
They should have the right to PRIORITIZE traffic for the HIGHEST payer, the less paying drivers should HAVE TO WAIT until the most paying, prioritized traffic have passed from the junction. If need be, undefinitely.
Old ladies, young lads in will have to wait in their cars, as they do not have the cash to pay at every junction (just like their websites under cope). but hey, its a free market. Middle class citizens will be arriving home from work much, much late, as they cant afford to pay at every junction, but hey, at least WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY BOTTLENECK IN JUNCTIONS.
This is what COPE without Network Neutrality is.
Imagine people finding their windows 'disabled' at start of the workday because their copy was misidentified as 'ingenuine'. Imagine this happening right prior to an important presentation. Imagine a few hundred thousand dollars in deals lost.
...
Imagine people in suits. Imagine briefcases, papers, signatures. Imagine a new class action lawsuit
while working or studying.
Yea, believe me, it really delivers.
For the first 1-2 minutes, it relaxes the mood and brain, the caffeine tension little bit goes away, and when you do not pay attention to the music anymore and it falls to the background - voila - youre on one magic journey. Thoughts flow in and away, like you are in the middle of a chorus.
But you gotta find a good selection to listen - preferrably an internet radio that does music for the workdays. One i listen to almost always is the Klassikradio. German, hamburg based. It plays wonderful selection in workday, nothing sleepy, nothing gothic, but right on pitch, and at nights it passes to a nice selections on blues, jazz and soft tunes. Give it a shot, you will be satisfied :
http://www.klassikradio.de/live-stream/
I put this reply in the wrong place, you havent probably noticed it. Im correcting here : -- I get your point, but i do not get this ; what if they say 'this is our right, it is free market, and blah blah' ? Can such delicate things be left to debate ? Can we privatize military and delegate it ? EVEN if we put forth regulations for privatized military, can we still risk it ? Profit lust, greed, selfishness, always will find some seemingly-logical reason to defend its point. This sometimes comes out of pure greed, sometimes comes from ignorance. If we make an analogy, if there was a debate about privatization of military, there would be hundreds of prominent figures in defence complex that were churning out a phletora of 'strong' reasons to privatize the military every day - like, "Optimal performance" "Lower taxes because of that" "Much more professional military" "Scalable" "Free Market" "Innovation" "Right To choose your own defender" "Hands off the defence !" .... go figure.
I am a liberal, somewhat new ageish, and hippie in manners. I am a supporter of freedoms of all kinds WAY further than you can imagine.
However, being liberal in matters social, economical and ideological issues does not mean that one should ever let go of wisdom and caution - some liberties are way too dangerous.
Like the liberty of "Preaching for Jihad against the infidel" - there can be no such liberty. A liberty for ending liberties is a paradox and cannot be accepted.
Taking this view to the matter at hand, if the telco camp werent given that much 'freedom' of speech in a delicate manner like this, we wouldnt have a problem.
Similarly, if a "privatization of military" debate would EVER be allowed, you can be damn sure that some people would find ways and spend hoards of money to persuade the public and litigators to do it, and to a great extent they would succeed.
--
I get your point, but i do not get this ; what if they say 'this is our right, it is free market, and blah blah' ?
.... go figure.
Can such delicate things be left to debate ? Can we privatize military and delegate it ? EVEN if we put forth regulations for privatized military, can we still risk it ?
Profit lust, greed, selfishness, always will find some seemingly-logical reason to defend its point. This sometimes comes out of pure greed, sometimes comes from ignorance.
If we make an analogy, if there was a debate about privatization of military, there would be hundreds of prominent figures in defence complex that were churning out a phletora of 'strong' reasons to privatize the military every day - like, "Optimal performance" "Lower taxes because of that" "Much more professional military" "Scalable" "Free Market" "Innovation" "Right To choose your own defender" "Hands off the defence !"
I am a liberal, somewhat new ageish, and hippie in manners. I am a supporter of freedoms of all kinds WAY further than you can imagine.
However, being liberal in matters social, economical and ideological issues does not mean that one should ever let go of wisdom and caution - some liberties are way too dangerous.
Like the liberty of "Preaching for Jihad against the infidel" - there can be no such liberty. A liberty for ending liberties is a paradox and cannot be accepted.
Taking this view to the matter at hand, if the telco camp werent given that much 'freedom' of speech in a delicate manner like this, we wouldnt have a problem.
Similarly, if a "privatization of military" debate would EVER be allowed, you can be damn sure that some people would find ways and spend hoards of money to persuade the public and litigators to do it, and to a great extent they would succeed.
Gun Owners of America's Craig Fields puts it best:
"In a very, very strange situation, what we have is the necessity of government intervention to ensure a free marketplace of ideas. Whenever you see people from the far left and the far right joining together about something that Congress is getting ready to do, it's been my experience that what Congress is getting ready to do is basically un-American."
On the contrary, if the logic in the telco lines accepted, a phletora of likewise, slightly bit modified logic folows :
Why not, as i gave the example for it, privatize military force, awarding regional and international defence contracts to companies who will hire soldiers, make weapons and maintain them ? It would be much, much cheaper for the nations. Much more effective than cumbersome government meddling.
Of course, then it is just logical that later we would allow them to decide how the weapons used, when and where. Its just normal.
I guess you see my point. Some business can not be treated as equal of opening up a coffee shop in a town in midwest. Because they affect too many things in life, not only many people - economy, code of conduct, communication, the right to choose, what you know and what not and more, we cant let anything go THAT much privatized.
If it is rational to do so, then lets remove the anti-trust laws too, because they were put there with the logic i am defending.
Definitely, indian tech workers will be demanding more in the future.
This is something new now, and they are making considerable money they have never dreamt of before for their country's standards, but when the standard of living rises, so the wage demands will.
But when ? I reckon not earlier than 2 years.
Nay impossible.
Even in remotely resembling examples i have lived left me without sleep. Rather broke than conscience nightmare.
Well, if we follow the lines you are proposing, it might as well can be said that the companies who have produced the weapons for the army should be allowed to decide and regulate where they are going to be used, how and when.
0 9/1427218
Because, at its this state, the COPE bill is enabling telcos to do exactly that - despite being laid in public property, with the work funded by the public, and paid for use by the public.
I indeed believe that if something becomes too far-fetched in consequences should be no-one's property. The opposite is WAY too dangerous to risk.
Compensation ? There is no country in the world that heapload of taxes are not paid to be found squandered in shady deals and 'incentives' awarded to some businesses close to current adminstration. Just like what is happening with the bush adm right now, like the oil grab in iraq, some companies taking over some 'reconstruction' works without facing any competition, and so on.
Any compensation for these companies which put (and IF they did put) money in setting up public lines, can be arranged and paid back in a defined schedule over years. Also, as Rep. Markey said apparently yesterday in congress : Let me just make this point once again. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the creation of the Internet. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the development of the World Wide Web. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the browser and its development. In fact, AT&T was asked if they wanted to build the Internet, the packet-switched network in 1966. They turned the contract down when the government went to them. And so a company named BB&N, Bolt, Beranek, & Newman got the contract, a very small company -- not AT&T. They had nothing to do with the development of the Internet, but now, at this late date, they want to come in and to create these bottleneck control points that allow them to extract Internet taxes, Internet fees from companies and individuals who have been using the Internet for a generation. It is this absence of non-discriminatory language in the Manager's Amendment and in the bill to which I object. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/
that are coming up all around the world.
... and we will be able to know we are being tapped or not.
*Feel Feel* *Sense Sense*
Like "turning right from the 3D Browse button, then moving towards the Door-like Enter button, and levitating over the sinuzoidally-flowing search results" ...
Too much waste of precious time.
Best is the way we have it now ; click, click and voila.
Even if there are not-public founded lines, all lines lie in public property.
Furthermore it is not a question of ownership. Not for something in this scale - This is something that effects ALL lives on the face of the earth, directly for approx 1 billion people (internet users) and indirectly for an additional 1-2 billion people. (their acquintances, family, friends).
Internet is something that is a world heritage now. It belongs to humanity.
Why ? Because it is something that is VERY important and far fetching in its consequences that we cannot have it any other way.
Let me tell what i think about the matter - these people have been bribed, and they have been bribed HUGE amounts of cash.
This is the summary of it.
So now what ?
Dont you expect that those who can manipulate the congress this way now will be at the helm of whatever political and military power that is left, when and after a disaster strikes ?
What if they herd you into a slave labor camp for their own use ?
Whats the point of kicking out monarchs if one is going to let the wealthy rule in place ?
Actually there is not much difference between the feudal society and the wealth-based dynasties.
i too would trash net neutrality ....
....
NOT !
Unfortunately im not a person that puts money ahead of principles, but apparently there are many that do.
Hm. That explains some stuff indeed. I thought that republicans were the 'conservatives' in core, while democrats were the 'liberals'.
Apparently democrats are more like Scandinavian Social Democrats. Looking to the state of scandinavian people, i would say democrats are the angels, then.
Youre saying that there is more to the commerce & trade than to conservatism in republicans.
Over a day and a half of fury about how the internet is being sold by the u.s. house to the big bucks, my head now aches.
I f.ckin do not believe how you, u.s. people can ALLOW for such debate to even take place, such s.hit rule the agenda, and do not blow your congressmen's senator's ears off about the matter.
The biggest revolution, since the french revolution, the internet, is being handed over to the minority elite.
This is our 'thing'. This is the 'thing' of our times. This is one of the most important thing in our times.
My head really aches, and im weary.
Mod this comment to hell if you will, but, please, offer some explanation for the mental chaos state i am in :
Im not a u.s. citizen. So, im not biased. My father was not a republican, or a democrat, i havent lived with either party's supporters never in my life, or had spent some considerable time. Again, i have no bias towards any party.
I also am a world history enthusiast. I enjoy reading and researching what has happened when and how, and where.
Naturally i have done a good deal of research on u.s. history too, from pre-columbian times up to this day.
However, i have realized while researching the period that is from the 13 states' rebellion against united kingdom to this day, WHATEVER bad happens to the american people seem to have happened in the periods when conservatives, (later republicans) are in power.
I wont go into long-past early independence times now, but citing from near past, the neverending vietnam war that has become a mess because of nixon, and the rep. senate, the nixon himself as a mess, incapacity of reagan to resolve the libya issue, incapacity of senior bush with iraq, the horrible, horrible issue going on in the veil of junior bush's 'war against terror', with american lives being lost increasingly day by day, american citizens losing their individual rights day by day, and now, the internet is good as gone, again with a republican senate, and ALL of the time, the republican 'representatives' do little to represent the 'traditional values' of the american people that voted for them, but do EXCEEDINGLY WELL in protecting and promoting the interests of minority wealth groups at the expense of the voters' rights and welfare.
I am baffled at this point :
The republican party seems to capitalize on 'traditional and good american values' almost EVERY election, get elected, then do practically NOTHING for preserving those values, instead they do ANYTHING that is neccessary to channel more wealth to some minority wealth group, even if it means creating new wars in remote, in places that seem godforsaken and forgotten to american people, and do this with very lame excuses, american lives, money, rights get lost, but, a new election comes up, AND THE CYCLE REPEATS ITSELF !!!!!!
This is what i do not understand, WHY DO these people REPEATEDLY vote for these people that do everything to harm them ?!???
Being Libertarian does not mean being stupid.
What you are saying is like "Lets remove homicide penalizations in law since we are libertarians".
As the Telcos got what they wanted to get to do with internet, i suspect that almost all of us will be vying for the freedom and equal opportunity of the internet in china.
... Opportunity to f.ck up the biggest technological&international revolutiuon in the history of the world ?
Google should do wise to stay in china, as the thing closest to internet as we know it will only exist in china after some 6-12 months, thanks to 'Telecommunications OPPORTUNITY' act.
What "opportunity" this is i wonder