save the internet

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html

(PopSci.com) -- What if the Internet were like cable television, with Web sites grouped like channels into either basic or premium offerings? What if a few big companies decided which sites loaded quickly and which ones slowly, or not at all, on your computer?

what you can do? http://www.savetheinternet.com/?t=1

What is this about?

This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.

But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful network neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.

"its the corporations, global warming!"

no more 12oz or krink recipes :bawling: :bawling:

the people with money will get their agenda across, regardless.

its fucked up, but theres nothing we can do about it. we're not in bed with the politicians.

you say it sarcastically? but its so true

"but theres nothing we can do about it"

if you dont speak up, then your voice won't be heard....at least the hippies in the 60s protested.

i cant care about stuff anymore. its too disappointing.

protest accomplishes nothing nowadays. not to rag on the cause or anything, if you do accomplish something id give you a high five. but these old corporate bastards (politicians included) have such absolute power, its frightening.

people are too distracted with their workaday lives, and the corporations got people working round the clock for their agenda.

its a poo - poop situation.

get violent, kill someone, whatever it takes....u can too still do something

i admire your optimism (sp?)

gives me a little hope.

I honestly think there's way too much power in users' hands for this to happen.

this was predicted a few years back by Lawrence Lessig. check out his book future of ideas.

source

House panel votes for Net neutrality

update WASHINGTON--A bill that seeks to prevent broadband providers from offering an exclusive high-speed lane for video and other services has taken a step closer to becoming law.

By a 20-13 vote Thursday that partially followed party lines, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would require broadband providers to abide by strict Net neutrality principles, meaning that their networks must be operated in a "nondiscriminatory" manner.

All 14 Democrats on the committee (joined by six Republicans) supported the measure, while 13 Republicans opposed it.

That vote is a surprise victory for Internet companies such as Amazon.com, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo that had lobbied fiercely in the last few months for stricter laws to ensure that Verizon, AT&T and other broadband providers could not create a "fast lane" reserved for video or other high-priority content of their choice.

"The lack of competition in the broadband marketplace presents a clear incentive for providers to leverage dominant market power over the broadband bottleneck, to preselect, favor or prioritize Internet content," said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican who heads the committee.

In an unusual twist, many members of the committee said they were voting for the legislation not because of strong concerns over Net neutrality--but instead because of a turf battle. They said they were worried that a competing proposal already approved by a different committee last month would diminish their own influence in the future.

That other bill, called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement, or COPE, Act, says the Federal Communications Commission "shall have exclusive authority" to investigate violations of Net neutrality principles. It's backed by Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who heads the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and does not include strict Net neutrality mandates.

Because the FCC is overseen by Barton's committee, that proposal would effectively cut off Judiciary Committee members from being able to hold hearings on Net neutrality antitrust violations, give speeches about corporate malfeasance and solicit campaign cash from affected companies--the lifeblood of modern Washington politics.

That resulted in an unusual situation in which politicians who weren't enthusiastic about the Judiciary bill nevertheless voted for it on Wednesday. "I think the bill is a blunt instrument, and yet I think it does send a message that it's important to attain jurisdiction for the Justice Department and for antitrust issues," said Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat.

The most pointed opposition to the Judiciary bill came from Texas Republican Lamar Smith, who said he would prefer "to leave these decisions to the courts to work out on a case-by-case basis under the antitrust law."

The existing bill is far too regulatory and could "put a straitjacket on this important sector of the economy," Smith warned.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, a New York Democrat, said he also disagreed with the "regulatory scheme" proposed by the bill's sponsors but wasn't about to let the rival committee's proposal win. "The way the Energy and Commerce bill is written is to deny this committee--and, frankly, citizens--a right to remedy," he said.

AT&T said after the vote that it was disappointed but hoped that the turf war between the two committees could be resolved. "We are optimistic that the majority in Congress will see this legislation as an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist, and will instead focus on bringing choice to consumers by passing video choice legislation," Tim McKone, AT&T executive vice president for federal relations, said in a statement.

Walter McCormick, president of the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom), pointed to the pre-vote discussion when saying "the committee members understand that this misguided and reckless legislation could hamper investment and innovation and limit consumer choice." USTelecom is a trade association representing Verizon Communications, BellSouth and AT&T, as well as smaller telecommunications companies.

Also adopted was an amendment that Sensenbrenner and his co-sponsor Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, had offered. It says that broadband providers are allowed to offer consumer protection services such as parental controls; that they can offer special promotional pricing or marketing initiatives; and that they may prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of a particular type as long as they don't impose a surcharge.

Network operators from the telephone and cable industries, now allied with some of the nation's largest hardware makers, have said repeatedly that they have no intention of blocking, degrading or impairing content. They say they're protecting their right to manage their networks as they see fit, which could mean charging extra to heavy bandwidth users, such as video providers, that expect to have their content shuttled at priority speeds.

It's not clear what will happen next in the House. Often the House leadership, in this case the Republicans, will try to meld similar proposals together into one package before a floor vote. Alternatively, the Republican leadership could permit both bills to go to the floor for votes.

thank goodness for hackers any stupid ass rules like this will never last

yet another tech related thread down in history

I'm glad I'll be able to look back and say that I made the most of the internet's Golden Years.

NO MORE PORNO?

There is no way they can write the justice department outta this. If it has to do with enforcing the law that's their job. This administration has a nasty habit of consolidating power and trying to gut the rest of government.

NO MORE PORNO?

:lol:

yeah that's pretty funny but the truth of the matter is porn would probably get bigger because it's a lucrative industry. given the current state of affairs i'd say what would be most under attack is alternative media.

alternative media would be the first to go, the big 5 media companies that control virtually everything you see form billboards to your local newspaper, want to silence these other voices. a great site to support is http://www.adbusters.com check them out.