Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1.    #1  
    The repugs once again side with the monopolists:

    "...The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it.

    By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.

    Of the 421 House members who participated in the vote that took place around 6:30 p.m. PT, the vast majority of Net neutrality supporters were Democrats. Republicans represented most of the opposition. ...

    ..."The future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessens, of Netscape and Google...are going to have to pay taxes" to broadband providers, said Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat behind the Net neutrality amendment. This vote will change "the Internet for the rest of eternity,"...

    ...Defenders of the COPE Act, largely Republicans, dismissed worries about Net neutrality as fear mongering..."


    The Christian Coalition, the NRA, and Move On.com were allied in support of Net Neutrality.

    What are the long term implications and dangers of this ??
    Last edited by BARYE; 06/09/2006 at 09:12 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The repugs once again side with the monopolists:

    "...The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it.

    By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others. ..."

    The Christian Coalition, the NRA, and Move On.com were allied in support of Net Neutrality.

    What are the long term implications and dangers of this ??
    As if anyone could be surprised by this vote. It has been killing the big boys that they can't make oodles of money off the internet, particularly selling content. I can't believe we've survived this long without BOTH paying tariffs to every content provider as well as a federal internet "tax" of some sort. This is just the start of what I'm sure will be a successful stealth switch to their dream scenario by driving users to a highly enticing, higher speed, more efficient "internet pipe" for a fee. That way we didn't "force" it on the masses, they chose it.

    Think I'm wrong - just look at iTunes; the "legal" successor to Napster.

    That's the way the communication dummies will finally wake up to their current battle of opposing "free" internet services, like Philadelphia. The real money to be made will be in providing diamond lane service, not fighting low end attempts to create free internet hotspots in the slower commuter lane.

    As always, follow the money....
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  3. #3  
    what are these 'Net neutrality regulations'?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    what are these 'Net neutrality regulations'?
    itis my understanding that the fat pipe owners want to get into content delivery (tv etc.), so they are building fatter pipe -- and they want to be able to charge different rates for access to their fat pipe
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    As if anyone could be surprised by this vote. It has been killing the big boys that they can't make oodles of money off the internet, particularly selling content. I can't believe we've survived this long without BOTH paying tariffs to every content provider as well as a federal internet "tax" of some sort. This is just the start of what I'm sure will be a successful stealth switch to their dream scenario by driving users to a highly enticing, higher speed, more efficient "internet pipe" for a fee. That way we didn't "force" it on the masses, they chose it.

    Think I'm wrong - just look at iTunes; the "legal" successor to Napster.

    That's the way the communication dummies will finally wake up to their current battle of opposing "free" internet services, like Philadelphia. The real money to be made will be in providing diamond lane service, not fighting low end attempts to create free internet hotspots in the slower commuter lane.

    As always, follow the money....
    so we're on my side on this -- and againsts the GOP ???
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    so we're on my side on this -- and againsts the GOP ???
    I'm not always against you Barye. I think we see eye to eye (or maybe eye to knee my diminutive simian friend ) on this one.

    It's not just the GOP (there are big media backed Dem's as well, it's just easier for them to vote against it because they no they can't win the vote anyway; like so many other politicians who make votes for purely political reasons knowing the legislation they oppose will pass with or without them). The "big pipe" folks, as you call them, have a lot of well paid for clout in Washington.
    Last edited by dstrauss; 06/09/2006 at 10:34 AM.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  7. #7  
    Support BPL! Broadband over powerliines. That'll take most of the providers out of the loop! If you've got electricity, then you're already connected.

    http://www.nbc4.com/technology/2765704/detail.html
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Support BPL! Broadband over powerliines. That'll take most of the providers out of the loop! If you've got electricity, then you're already connected.

    http://www.nbc4.com/technology/2765704/detail.html
    BPL is good -- but isn't it a "last mile" technolgy that
    addresses a different issue than verizon's fatty pipes ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    I'm not always against you Barye. I think we see eye to eye (or maybe eye to knee my diminutive simian friend ) on this one.
    friends??? humans -- especially repug humans -- are but subjects to me -- to rule over, or experiment on !!

    It's not just the GOP (there are big media backed Dem's as well, it's just easier for them to vote against it because they no they can't win the vote anyway; like so many other politicians who make votes for purely political reasons knowing the legislation they oppose will pass with or without them). The "big pipe" folks, as you call them, have a lot of well paid for clout in Washington.
    "...Of the 421 House members who participated in the vote that took place around 6:30 p.m. PT, the vast majority of Net neutrality supporters were Democrats. Republicans represented most of the opposition..."

    I think for the GOP it reflects in part a philisophical bias against unpredictable creative freedom, and on behalf of wealthy entrenched interests.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #10  
    I have to say, I don't know all of the specifics of the debate. But I've read the amendment and I have to agree that it seems like a good thing from the consumer point of view. I do believe that companies like Verizon, who build the infrastructure, should be able to decide what they can do with it. However, as long as they have a monopoly on the lines in certain regions of the country they have to be subject to a certain amount of regulation.

    Here’s a thought: couldn’t the amendment have been written such that partnerships between service providers and content providers amounted to a conflict of interests?
  11. #11  
    and it is killing them that Al Gore is making mountains of money with Google. and we wonder why the gov't has been on Google lately...we now know why... the Gore factor.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The repugs once again side with the monopolists:

    "...The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it.

    By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.

    Of the 421 House members who participated in the vote that took place around 6:30 p.m. PT, the vast majority of Net neutrality supporters were Democrats. Republicans represented most of the opposition. ...

    ..."The future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessens, of Netscape and Google...are going to have to pay taxes" to broadband providers, said Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat behind the Net neutrality amendment. This vote will change "the Internet for the rest of eternity,"...

    ...Defenders of the COPE Act, largely Republicans, dismissed worries about Net neutrality as fear mongering..."


    The Christian Coalition, the NRA, and Move On.com were allied in support of Net Neutrality.

    What are the long term implications and dangers of this ??
    Capitalist Hater. No, really.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    friends??? humans -- especially repug humans -- are but subjects to me -- to rule over, or experiment on !!


    "...Of the 421 House members who participated in the vote that took place around 6:30 p.m. PT, the vast majority of Net neutrality supporters were Democrats. Republicans represented most of the opposition..."

    I think for the GOP it reflects in part a philisophical bias against unpredictable creative freedom, and on behalf of wealthy entrenched interests.
    Ya Think, if they were anymore obvious about who butters their bread, as long as they control both houses they will do what they want, when they want, to whom they want....in other words we all need to bend over!!!!!!
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Capitalist Hater. No, really.
    I'm usually in your camp Micael, but when you are talking about government granted monopolies, even where there has been substantial private capital investment, it's just plain wrong to encourage stomping the consumer.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    friends??? humans -- especially repug humans -- are but subjects to me -- to rule over, or experiment on !!...
    Yeah...yeah...yeah...we've all seen Planet of the Apes (both versions, and all the sequels/prequels). Get over yourself man; it will go a lot easier on you with the collar and organ grinder.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    I'm usually in your camp Micael, but when you are talking about government granted monopolies, even where there has been substantial private capital investment, it's just plain wrong to encourage stomping the consumer.
    'granted' monopolies? Look, you can spin it any way you like, but any time the government is brought in to "level" the playing field, things get totally hosed. At least "try" to find another solution. The market can be managed without the 'help' of the socialists, thank you very much.

    I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm saying that a government intervene is the solution to try last.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    'granted' monopolies? Look, you can spin it any way you like, but any time the government is brought in to "level" the playing field, things get totally hosed. At least "try" to find another solution. The market can be managed without the 'help' of the socialists, thank you very much.

    I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm saying that a government intervene is the solution to try last.
    Man, I feel like a fish out of water on this topic, because I'm naturally one of Barye's repugs he hates so much - BUT - when the government grants monopolies (whether by selling airwaves or building barriers to entry such as the telcos), they have more of a duty to the public than normal. Even Teddy Roosevelt recognized that one. I agree, regulators tend to muck up everything; but, allowing the big pipes to run roughshod over the playing field to their financial enrichment is "horse hockey."
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.

Posting Permissions