Marijuana.com

Mamabudz

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0609-06.htm

Published on Friday, June 9, 2006 by the BBC / UK

Defeat for Net Neutrality Backers

US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation.

by Tom Lasseter

Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use.
The vote is a defeat for Google, eBay and Amazon which wanted the net neutrality principle protected by law.

All three mounted vigorous lobbying campaigns prior to the vote in the House of Representatives.

<snip>

...FYI folks --- choose your ISP well, your Dollars Spent are a VOTE for Net Freedom

 

dedbr

I wonder.....before the motion picture industry had a "code" they made movies that showed whatever they wanted to back in the early part of the twentieth century. Then came censureship and that all changed.

Actually, the laws about anything to do with anything the Moral majority didn't agree with changed, and we've been living under that thumb ever since.

Did anyone really think that the great toy of the www. would remain neutral or uncensored for long?


Somewhere in Ded Land.....

__________________
"We have met the enemy, and he is us" .......... Pogo (for Prez...)

Remember to check out our most wonderful Posting Guidelines!

Toking Jedi

I think we all thought that if anything like this were to happen, the government would see that the internet is a crucial part of democracy and protect net neutrality. I don't think anyone foresaw the Bush administration. The problem is, this is connected with everything else: the war, the drug war, litigation reform, tax cuts; they want to benefit huge corporations and those with money who will give them money and help them out. They don't see eye to eye with the American public. Corruption. That's why this is happening. That's why net neutrality failed.

__________________

dedbr

Give that man a cigar!


Somebody just figured out that he's not getting his share of the internet pie, and like everything else, my friend, if they can't get their piece, they will tear it up.....


Somewhere in Ded Land......

THC Fiend

She tokes and she votes... take notes folks!

Some Where in MED land.

__________________
"Nietzsche is dead."
-God

brevity is... wit

 

Mamabudz

Net Neutrality ...now has an anthem


http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20060613/tc_zd/180799

Abomonog

I knew it wouldn't and I also know why it won't. Net Neutrality is not a matter of profit. The real issue is control.

You see, the way it is now the net is one garguantuan world wide Library of Alexandria. Right now with a simple google search I can learn anything. Litterally the entire planet from A to Z. is at your keyboard. Eliminating net neutrality is not a local issue but one that is supported by virtually every government in the world. Why? Because we can now chat with people in China with ease. We can see what their life is like without a filter (and they have a few customs that our American nannys would rather us not know about). Same with Korea, or Iraq, Isrial. Anyone anywhere on the planet with a web connection is accessable. The internet has started to mold the world into a single giant community and our leaders are still too childish to give up their toys.

__________________
It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack!

^_^truth

Funny thing about the defeat of net neutrality is I haven't seen a back-lash yet. Anyone wonder why: oh yeah, it isn't in the interest of these lobbying groups to make waves, because they also need the support of the senators and reps. for other issues.

The philosophy of net neutrality is great, and it should continue to be fought for. Problem is when you have a House with a nearly 98% re-election rate, and from my viewings of c-span I would go as far as saying the majority of those reps are old enough to be technologly incompantent, the House has little reason to care.

If you want net neutrality to be enacted in law, you better start by getting fresh new blood into the House, people who aren't the age of your average grandparent (nothing wrong with the AARP, but when it comes to technical issues they should be left out).

Issues that deal with the internet and inter-continanental (spelling is not my friend today) communications really have no business with any government now that I think about it. It is a special community with its own inequalities and "geographical" problems, and if we follow the advice of the our old friends the from the 18th (edit: I had the wrong century by mistake...duh) century, particularly Russeau, we would be wise to note that these are the seeds for the needs of an individual governing body. The US governement, just as the Canadian, or Chinaease, or anyother government for that matter have not right to be placing jurice prudience (again sorry about the spelling) on a global community, rather if governing is going to take place on the internet it needs to be controlled by those that are activly using it.

In otherwords, the internet needs its own satute and its own force to counter the intrusive claims of countries on its users rights. Either the internet users fights back with policial change, or form their own new system to outcast the intruders.

Sorry about that rant, but when a government that only controls so much of the world tries to place a judgement that would effect the entire interwoven network (because seriously if the US had a censored internet, a new precedent could be formed in international law; this isn't that far-fetched), I have a bit of a problem with that. It doesn't have to be the US Government that does it, heck when China does it I am just as equally concerned, if not more so.


[Editting note: I mentioned it the title of the post, and I should explain, one person that should really be played to in order to gain some support would be the Bill Gates and Microsoft, which, despite their offering of a sub-par ISP, have a whole lot to lose if net neutrality was not obeyed, as their update systems are largly influenced by the speed given by the ISP's to that service. In the short term, microsoft (well now that I think about it Apple is in the same situtation) would be fine, but as time goes on and more and more viruses require more and more security updates, microsofts costs to these ISP's would be horrible, espcially consistering the ISP's can charge these companies any amount they want. Just thought I should add that little observation as a foot-note to this exceedingly short discourse.]

__________________
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Nietzsche

Mamabudz

...exactly --

How refreshing to be able to discuss topics like this and have mature and cogent responses.

And yes, as the US sets a precedent -- so follows the world on this issue.

But don't sell the AARP short just yet, remember these are now the Hippies -- they have some ideas and they are quite interesting --- I say this because I've started to receive copies of the AARP MAgazine (the one with Paul McArtney at 64 was a hoot) and their other circulars -- no I am not over 55 (which btw is the age to sign up for AARP discounts and info) -- Just got on the lists. Keep an eye on their Marijuana stance -- they are Pro but got their support sidelined by some rather off-putting editors... I see them as a huge support group to any legalization efforts.

^_^truth

Sliding to a side topic to this topic;

-Mama, you bring up a valid point about the AARP's poltical sway and the generation that is joining the AARP. However, these are the same people who have been running thr country for at least that last twenty years already, and going off their track record...well I am not too confindent in their leading ablity.

True they are great place to foster a legalization lobby; however, when an issue that is concerned with a rather new problem with a technology, that the new AARP members had a large force in promoting and turning into a business during the 70's and 80's, these folks have still been out of the loop for quite awhile.

Additionally, on a larger temporal scale (which I know is a scary arguement form to be using, but I think it fits well in this case), the members of the AARP have no place dealing with an advancing technological issue as the membes will likly not using this technolgy in their everyday lives.

Its just not in the interest of the AARP and its supported senators to bother having knowledge on a new topic.

But I digress, my point was suppose to be simple- The AARP and its supported Senators and House Reps. are indeed valuble alles in some fights, but in the case of Net Neutrality, I would much rather see a different governing body deal with the issue.