Those speeds sound like you live within the limits of a major city or its suburbs in America. In rural America and the nation's smaller cities - to include cities that are not quite that small but are served by Comcast, such as Pittsburgh - those speeds on DSL are at best illusory promises of what will happen "someday" but are never attained.
And I would point out that you have to pay more for those higher rates. Is the ability to participate in democracy in America - the free exchange of ideas - to be a matter of income? If you have sufficient income, you can play - but otherwise, not?
The transferal of the "poll tax" from the voting booth, to the means of information exchange?
HDTV Almanac - FCC Loses on Net Neutrality
-
gartrste
- Member
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:58 pm
loll...you come perilously close to revealing a desire for the ability to censor political discourse on the internet
Prior to the internet, we were less able to detect when we were being lied to; prior to the internet, we had to rely on books, magazines, newspapers, TV, and radio to disseminate information. Prior to the internet, discussion of issues was of necessity limited - there was simply no way for the individual to participate in nationwide forums in anything remotely approaching a real-time manner.
I know that some - those who are being enriched by the status quo - wish to see the Internet's ability to reveal them for what they are to be stifled. But if it happens, we will be in much worse shape than before the internet became commonplace because so many newspapers have died. Those that remain are too often the voices of mega-corporations with the agenda of any corporation: To enrich a few people by separating many people from their money.
I was not expecting you to switch horses in mid-stream from arguing that alternatives existed (when they do not) to inferring that free speech existed before the internet and so if "traffic shaping" were used to block the flow of political information (or to ensure that only the "right" political information got through) there would be no impact upon the right to free speech that every American has.
A curious diversion, given that the Supreme Court has given the corporations the ability to use their limitless funds to drown out the speech of all other Americans on all forms of media except the Internet.
And then there is the fact that using traffic shaping to eliminate the dissemination of political ideas and the collection of political contributions from grass roots organizations would help only America's right...who are no doubt still stinging from the fact that Obama used precisely those methods to attain the Presidency.
That fact leads me to suspect that I can guess the political motivation of those who argue that permitting the corporations to decide what will take place on the Internet is...no big deal.
I know that some - those who are being enriched by the status quo - wish to see the Internet's ability to reveal them for what they are to be stifled. But if it happens, we will be in much worse shape than before the internet became commonplace because so many newspapers have died. Those that remain are too often the voices of mega-corporations with the agenda of any corporation: To enrich a few people by separating many people from their money.
I was not expecting you to switch horses in mid-stream from arguing that alternatives existed (when they do not) to inferring that free speech existed before the internet and so if "traffic shaping" were used to block the flow of political information (or to ensure that only the "right" political information got through) there would be no impact upon the right to free speech that every American has.
A curious diversion, given that the Supreme Court has given the corporations the ability to use their limitless funds to drown out the speech of all other Americans on all forms of media except the Internet.
And then there is the fact that using traffic shaping to eliminate the dissemination of political ideas and the collection of political contributions from grass roots organizations would help only America's right...who are no doubt still stinging from the fact that Obama used precisely those methods to attain the Presidency.
That fact leads me to suspect that I can guess the political motivation of those who argue that permitting the corporations to decide what will take place on the Internet is...no big deal.
-
akirby
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:52 pm
Wow. Better check your tin hat - the aliens could be here any second......
Seriously - I never said I was in favor of allowing the kinds of internet abuse you believe are eminent. I just don't believe it would actually happen. And why the obsession with cable broadband? If all you're worried about is getting your message out to the public you can do that with HTML text and a 56K modem. And you are GROSSLY exaggerating the decline of newspaper and TV outlets and the ability for those big, bad greedy corporations to control everything with their ill-gotten gains.
On second thought - believe whatever you want. It's not worth arguing over.
Seriously - I never said I was in favor of allowing the kinds of internet abuse you believe are eminent. I just don't believe it would actually happen. And why the obsession with cable broadband? If all you're worried about is getting your message out to the public you can do that with HTML text and a 56K modem. And you are GROSSLY exaggerating the decline of newspaper and TV outlets and the ability for those big, bad greedy corporations to control everything with their ill-gotten gains.
On second thought - believe whatever you want. It's not worth arguing over.
-
gartrste
- Member
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:58 pm
So desiring that my children have democracy, too, makes me the wearer of a tinfoil hat?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Bow- ... 9-498.html
We now have a scenario where the web entities approved by the corporations can get unlimited bandwidth, while those web sites dedicated to democracy - or simply to the truth, like PBS - may find that their visitors receive bandwidth equivalent to "HTML text and a 56K modem". Or worse. Or are blocked entirely.
If you think that this ruling that overturns the ability of the FCC to enforce net neutrality would be restricted to cable corporations such as Comcast, you are mistaken. There is no such thing as a DSL or dial-up home run to the website of interest. You have to remember the role that "precedent" plays in law. Because the user with the dial-up or the DSL hits the backbone at some point, the corporation owning that part of the backbone can use the precedent of this Comcast perversion to employ traffic shaping. And so can the DSL and dial-up providers themselves; they, too, agglomerate the traffic within their facility.
And there are other ways which this FCC ruling can be perverted. What is to prevent a corporation that owns or controls an internet access point or a portion of the backbone from deciding that the traffic that they will "shape" is all DNS queries that target domains known to be Republican - or Democratic - fund-raising organs? What is to prevent Comcast from doing that?
Whether the end user is on a 300 baud modem or a dedicated T3 trunk, their ability to participate in democracy - to exercise free speech; to participate in the exchange of ideas - is now threatened by a handful of individuals hiding behind the anonymity and immunity of a corporate facade. Not good, when our politicians can now be directly controlled with the limitless funds available to that same handful of corporate executes and wealthy individuals.
If you do nothing else, ask yourself: Why would our "big, bad greedy corporations" continually become involved in court cases designed to expand their power and influence if they did not desire "to control everything"? I note a distinct lack of corporate money being used to bring court cases that argue that a corporation is just a piece of paper with none of the rights reserved for living, breathing American citizens.
If you are one of those who expects to benefit from the above, you would not find the addition of the ability to censor what people say and what people see on the Internet to the corporate bag of tricks to be threatening. Of course. Why, you might even go so far as to portray those who worry about democracy as crazies in tinfoil hats...can't be having the American people remove such powerful weapons when they've hardly begun to be deployed, eh?For OpEdNews: Thom Hartmann - Writer
In a decision that shows the extended impact of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down limits on contributions to political groups that spend money to support or oppose candidates.
The court found that the $5,000 annual limit on contributions to such groups is unconstitutional, writing that the Citizens United ruling "resolves this appeal," in favor of SpeechNow.org, a group that seems to have been started with the specific purpose of challenging campaign-finance regulations.
SCOTUSblog concludes that this ruling "significantly broadens the impact of Citizens United, extending its constitutional reasoning from campaign spending to campaign donations."
Unless something is done quickly - like amending the Constitution to say that corporations aren't persons and don't get Bill of Rights protections - we can expect to see more and more of our elected officials having to bow to the wishes of the world's largest corporations or get creamed by multi-million dollar corporate financed ad campaigns.
We now have a scenario where the web entities approved by the corporations can get unlimited bandwidth, while those web sites dedicated to democracy - or simply to the truth, like PBS - may find that their visitors receive bandwidth equivalent to "HTML text and a 56K modem". Or worse. Or are blocked entirely.
If you think that this ruling that overturns the ability of the FCC to enforce net neutrality would be restricted to cable corporations such as Comcast, you are mistaken. There is no such thing as a DSL or dial-up home run to the website of interest. You have to remember the role that "precedent" plays in law. Because the user with the dial-up or the DSL hits the backbone at some point, the corporation owning that part of the backbone can use the precedent of this Comcast perversion to employ traffic shaping. And so can the DSL and dial-up providers themselves; they, too, agglomerate the traffic within their facility.
And there are other ways which this FCC ruling can be perverted. What is to prevent a corporation that owns or controls an internet access point or a portion of the backbone from deciding that the traffic that they will "shape" is all DNS queries that target domains known to be Republican - or Democratic - fund-raising organs? What is to prevent Comcast from doing that?
Whether the end user is on a 300 baud modem or a dedicated T3 trunk, their ability to participate in democracy - to exercise free speech; to participate in the exchange of ideas - is now threatened by a handful of individuals hiding behind the anonymity and immunity of a corporate facade. Not good, when our politicians can now be directly controlled with the limitless funds available to that same handful of corporate executes and wealthy individuals.
If you do nothing else, ask yourself: Why would our "big, bad greedy corporations" continually become involved in court cases designed to expand their power and influence if they did not desire "to control everything"? I note a distinct lack of corporate money being used to bring court cases that argue that a corporation is just a piece of paper with none of the rights reserved for living, breathing American citizens.
-
gartrste
- Member
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:58 pm
A little history of me...
In the early '70s, I joined the United States Army. My first assignment was with an organization known as the Army Security Agency. We did...interesting...things. I have been involved in technology since that time. (I remember my delight when my ability to participate in what were known as bulletin board systems - BBSs - was greatly enhanced by transitioning from a 300 baud modem to a 1200 baud modem...today, when people want to speak derisively of speed, they say speak of "56K dial-up"...always makes me chuckle. Particularly in light of the fact that the military systems I was accustomed to ran exponentially faster; being a civilian again was such a...handicap.)
My point is that I have experience with all kinds of electronic systems; systems used for all kinds of...purposes.
This Court decision that overturns net neutrality is the equivalent - no ifs, ands, or buts about it - of permitting the U.S. Postal Service to open each and every letter that it receives, read it, and then decide how soon they will deliver it - or if they will deliver it - based upon its contents.
And remember this: Databases are easy to create; easy to manage; easy to populate. I personally run several versions of SQL Server, mySql, SQLite - you name it - in my home.
Once an entity has the authority to open and inspect the "mail", you can justify storing what that individual does on the Internet as an integral part of your filtering system...you must be able to compare the traffic to what you want to pass and want to impede or block, eh? As with electronic medical databases, there is no doubt in my mind that corporations will share that information one to another; there is simply too much money in play bounded by zip in the way of ethics and morality. And if someone takes that possibility to the Courts with the intent of preventing that sharing...the Courts.... reflect too many Republican appointments.
It is unfortunate for America that the right - the Republicans - profess democracy and patriotism, but act in a manner that is the antithesis of democracy. If only Americans would remember that ancient wisdom:
"It is not what a man says that reveals the man; it is what the man does."
In the mouth of a Republican, "liberty" and "freedom" are words that describe what they shall have...not you.
My point is that I have experience with all kinds of electronic systems; systems used for all kinds of...purposes.
This Court decision that overturns net neutrality is the equivalent - no ifs, ands, or buts about it - of permitting the U.S. Postal Service to open each and every letter that it receives, read it, and then decide how soon they will deliver it - or if they will deliver it - based upon its contents.
And remember this: Databases are easy to create; easy to manage; easy to populate. I personally run several versions of SQL Server, mySql, SQLite - you name it - in my home.
Once an entity has the authority to open and inspect the "mail", you can justify storing what that individual does on the Internet as an integral part of your filtering system...you must be able to compare the traffic to what you want to pass and want to impede or block, eh? As with electronic medical databases, there is no doubt in my mind that corporations will share that information one to another; there is simply too much money in play bounded by zip in the way of ethics and morality. And if someone takes that possibility to the Courts with the intent of preventing that sharing...the Courts.... reflect too many Republican appointments.
It is unfortunate for America that the right - the Republicans - profess democracy and patriotism, but act in a manner that is the antithesis of democracy. If only Americans would remember that ancient wisdom:
"It is not what a man says that reveals the man; it is what the man does."
In the mouth of a Republican, "liberty" and "freedom" are words that describe what they shall have...not you.
-
gartrste
- Member
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:58 pm
Perhaps you're right...
lollll...I hope so. I truly do. Quite a lot of people hope you're right, I imagine; googling "threat citizens united" yields over 1.5 million hits - and its not even election season yet.
-
stevekaden
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:20 pm
to Gartrste..I fully support everthing you are saying, those who think Net Neutrality is a minor issue are the same ones crying freedom - while...miners die, the banking system destoys the economy, energy Lies about human induced global warming, cigarettes are good for you.....etc. etc. etc. The serfs just love to line up to support the kings. Go figure.
And typically, they will either diss it as no big, deal, or go directly to insult = your tin hat.
My insult to them is they all watch money obsessed charlitans like Beck, Gas Bag, and the rest of the Fox ilk who care nothing about hunanity. After all, those pesky humans get in the way of profit. (and spare me the capitalism does x,y,z - please. It can do all that and be for the people too).
And typically, they will either diss it as no big, deal, or go directly to insult = your tin hat.
My insult to them is they all watch money obsessed charlitans like Beck, Gas Bag, and the rest of the Fox ilk who care nothing about hunanity. After all, those pesky humans get in the way of profit. (and spare me the capitalism does x,y,z - please. It can do all that and be for the people too).
-
akirby
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:52 pm
For the record (again) - I don't watch Fox news or Beck or any of the other idiots on either side of the political fence. I do support net neutrality and even said that if we start to see abuses similar to the ones mentioned that I have no doubt we'll see new legislation to stop it.
There are far too many ISP choices and more on the way (Wi-Fi e.g.) for one to control anything.
Allowing corporations to make campaign contributions and sponsor advertising is not something I support. In fact I don't support any type of campaign financing - let the gov't pay for equal time for all candidates or get it donated by the media so it's all fair and there is no need to have millions of dollars in donations. Problem solved. However, the notion that this will somehow allow "big business" to "buy" elections is overstated.
In order to pull off this scenario one would have to directly control all media outlets and all internet access and that's not happening.
Interesting how the other side always pulls out the "greedy big business" and "you must stand to profit from this" and "you must watch Fox" cards (none of which apply to me). Lack of regulation wasn't the problem with mining. The government was lax in enforcing existing safety regulations (especially the $90M in uncollected fines). And you think MORE government is the answer? Puh-lease.
There are far too many ISP choices and more on the way (Wi-Fi e.g.) for one to control anything.
Allowing corporations to make campaign contributions and sponsor advertising is not something I support. In fact I don't support any type of campaign financing - let the gov't pay for equal time for all candidates or get it donated by the media so it's all fair and there is no need to have millions of dollars in donations. Problem solved. However, the notion that this will somehow allow "big business" to "buy" elections is overstated.
In order to pull off this scenario one would have to directly control all media outlets and all internet access and that's not happening.
Interesting how the other side always pulls out the "greedy big business" and "you must stand to profit from this" and "you must watch Fox" cards (none of which apply to me). Lack of regulation wasn't the problem with mining. The government was lax in enforcing existing safety regulations (especially the $90M in uncollected fines). And you think MORE government is the answer? Puh-lease.