Whose Web Is It, Anyway? Should we let Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner control the Net? I f*cking hope not.
Well I feel even if the www is taken over and censored small groups can still get together and form intranets that are local (distributing content there-in) those who are trusted would gain membership and be monitored too :S but only to make sure they weren't spies
look We run the government and We own the bandwidth. We only rent it out to these guys - it's not like they own anything. We own it. SO, with this in mind, we just need to make sure everyone is satisfied with keeping the net as free and equal as possible. THAT'S whay makes it so great. could you imagine if you got charged $0.10 every time you checked an email or posted a response? So people here would be broke! You know the Post used to be free.....
It's very simple, Uploading and Downloading is being Monitored. Every packet that's sent is put through a mincer looking for specific keywords or encryptions that require cracking. The amount of hardware required to monitor all the internet's traffic can't keep up with the speeds we use, so it's actually the monitor systems that are slowing the internet down . So the next time you complain that your ISP isn't giving you the speed you want and you perhaps blame network contention, take a moment to think of all those substandard government monitoring devices that are slowing the network to the speed they work at.
Wrong and wrong. You obviously don't own the government (offtopic here) and you definiatelly don't own the bandwidth. You didn't lay the cabel or fiber optic to your house, did you? If the post office can control what can be sent via their services, why Comcast couldn't or shouldn't??? I am not saying I am happy with the control, but they have a point...
Syzygys: "You obviously don't own the government (offtopic here) and you definiatelly don't own the bandwidth. You didn't lay the cabel or fiber optic to your house, did you?" Individuals don't own the airwaves either, but it was agreed early on (within our more open societies) that control of the airwaves must not be placed in the hands of a few. "If the post office can control what can be sent via their services, why Comcast couldn't or shouldn't???" The Post Office is not authorized to filter information content, for very important reasons. Comcast must not be so empowered either, because the compromise of net neutrality, in the precedent such compromise would set- is a threat to democracy. It was for identical reasons that the FCC was charged with the important duty of ensuring no broadcasting consortium could monopolize the airwaves. The internet is changing the world for the better, in no small part because it is the most inclusive information medium the world has ever seen. Opposition to net neutrality is ostensibly about profit. But on a deeper level, there are many institutions that are threatened by a nascent quantum-leap in universal access to information that has the potential to bring profound change beyond institutional (and corporate) control. Because the prospect of a universally-accessible internet is at least as portentous as Gutenberg's press (that heralded the renaissance and enlightenment) the stakes in this battle are astronomical. I find Save The Internet an informative resource regarding this issue. Take a look Syzygys, and think again.
Syzygys, We do not own the wires yes that`s true but We as in We the citizens of the USA do collectively control the bandwidth - or so I thought? I think we simply rent it out to the highest bidder. I'm sure we do. You know, I once told a buddy that if I buy a house in AU and return to the USA I can write my payments here off on my tax I pay there. He said, your government lets you do that?!? I said, buddy, I am the government Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We Amercians take a different attitude than pomies and other people. Or so we used to. WE are the government the people we elect are our servants and as much as people like Sandy love to put the POTUS up on a pedastal is as much as we should be pulling him or her back down to under our foot where they deserve to be. So, with this in mind, yes we don't own the cable but we do own the bandwidth and therefor We make the rental agreement with Our tenents and they will afford equal and free access or go find bandwidth in some other country! Agreed?? Michael PS: I thought you and I would agree on this topic?
Its the age of the megacorporations. They will get whatever they wish unless.. well, nvm i think people are too lazy or tired for that kind of revolution Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Information? No, but you can not send explosive or shit. Since it is hard to send explosives via the internet, the equivalent would be childpornography, spam, copyright violations,etc. So yes, the carrier could make a good case that they don't want to be held liable because the sender is breaking the law. Too much democracy can end up as anarchy... or worse. There is no personal privacy anymore, I can get robbed of my bank account without even leaving the house, my kids can be abused online, etc. The point is that there are always negatives... Also several businesses going to end with the internet. Who is going to buy the Britannica Encyclopedia when we have free Wikipedia???
But you are not. First you don't even have real choices whom to elect for president. Then whoever you end up with can do basicly ANYTHING against the will of the people, and so far the people are taking it like a nice callgirl. Our biggest problem right now is energy, and what was Bush' solution? occupying Iraq. So no, we do not own the government. Without cable, there is no bandwidth. You are only the user, not the owner. If the 3 biggest carriers decide to control the information, they easily can. Just look at Pakistan, they shot down Youtube. If the government decides to play real dirty, they could force citizens to use only American carriers. An analogy would be online gaming. The government effectively shot down the pokersites for Americans. Sure there are ways to go around it but not everybody is willing or knows how to do it... In theory I agree, but I know better than hoping that corporations let users do whatever they want...
I disagree, I can vote for whomever I wish to be president. Who would have thought 10 years ago Obama would be in line for president? From one does not lead they other. Yes, a big problem now is energy. In the future maybe the biggest problem will be too many people or a pandemic or maybe all the chemicals in the world will start morphing people into superheros Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Bush is an idiot that I agree. Occupying Iraq was his simple minded solution because he is an idiot. But, that doesn't mean we don't run the show - it just means people can be tricked by something like 9/11. That's always been the case. Anyway, while Bush is an idiot he didn't cause the energy problem he just didn't make the best choice in confronting it. Then again, what did Bill do? I think the super fast internet, IF IT REMAINS FREE, will do away with that - and as Japan just launched a satalite with super fast broadband - it can be used without cable. Hence no need of the cable companies. As for Pakistan - come on. Comparing the USA to a backwater like Pakistan - not a good comparison! WE are THE government. We'd be forcing ourselves. SO long as enough Americans want something then we will have it. Well for now it's moving in the right direction but we must remain vigilant so that we don't go down the wrong road.... anyway, luckily we can get rid of Bush soon Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Michael
