McCain introduces bill to block Net neutrality

Im very confused about the whole net neutrality thing. Some people say its to ensure ultimate freedom of the internet, making it so that no government nor business interest has authority over it, while some people say its the complete opposite.

Which is the truth? Im so freaking confused.
 
We want neutrality, otherwise it will be worse than Fox news Internet controlled by the rich corporations, with increased prices that cut small business owners out of the picture. Very poor service speeds for those not aligned with the mega-corporation's interests.

The corporations invest millions in lobbying to kill net neutrality. In order to fight it, we need donations and signatures. You don't have to donate, but you can definitely spare 3 minutes every few months to sign petitions that make things happen.

No elected official wants to disappoint the millions of people who have signed a petition.

if you go here, to www.savetheinternet.com, you can get on a mailing list that will alert you once every couple of months. Usually you can help simply by signing your name and providing your email address. The rest of the text is pre-filled.
 
TwwIX said:
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/mccain-net-neutrality/


First he votes for the Pro rape bill, now this. There's your "Maverick".
Somebody needs to put this old fart away.
Click to expand...

Sarah Palin was the Maverick.


And yeah, I'm getting really sick of these corporate dickbutts trying to block this. AT&T and Comcast actually hired people to go to meetings and hearings about net neutrality so that legitimate people who actually knew what was going on and had things to say couldnt go. The people that were hired just slept in the chairs or read a newspaper during the whole thing. That shit pissed me off hardcore. If McCain was ever cool before, hes definitely not cool for this.

That savetheinternet site is decent for knowing that this sort of stuff is going on. They seem very propaghanda-ish in their presentation, but they actually have been helping a lot and seem to legitimately care about this. I was wary about them at first, but they've been fightin the good fight for awhile now.
 
Exactly Krynn. And sadly, the fight will go on forever. Corporations live forever and have no soul. While I'm here, I intend to fight. After I'm dead, I won't care. We must be vigilant (you need to participate by signing petitions), because they certainly are spending millions on lawyers and lobbying and putting money into campaigns.

Why are the corporations spending this money? Because they can make it back in dividends once they have killed off net neutrality. And small news sites will be almost impossible to access, funneling people into their speedy fast biased news outlets coming straight from wall street. Once they have you voting their way due to biased news, they can get laws that work in their favor financially. Things like $6,000,000 .mp3's.

And if you think this doesn't concern you, I promise you, it will one day - but it might be too late. Regular people don't have millions to spend to fight something, so once the law is in place, we won't be able to challenge it.

Help make Net Neutrality law.
 
looks what happened when the printing press, newspaper, telephone, television, radio, and tv got bought out by big corporations....they eliminated free enterprise and the voices that were out there on the various forms of communication

it almost seems inevitable sadly
 
For example: If Comcast/AT&T/Other Corporations have their way, they will limit the speed of certain websites. Like Virus said, only a few major news sites that comcast wants us to see will actually be allotted bandwidth, while sites insignificant to their bottom line, like www.halflife2.net will get shit for bandwidth, and basically browsing hl2.net will be like you're on a 28.8k modem again unless you pay a rediculous monthly fee for the "privilege" of viewing smaller sites. Essentially it will kill the internet as we know it, and it will eventually become more like cable tv is now, with basic channels you can get for a high monthly price, and then you can get the special expanded cable for a higher price, and then buy access to the specific channels like hbo (hl2.net) for a ridiculous premium. All while killing small websites that can't afford to pay server costs due to reduced traffic, loss of advertiser interest etc.

Its ****ing stupid, and everyone should be fighting against it, and trying to move help this bill forward. If not because you dont want the internet to become a monopolized industry like everything else in the world, then do it for your wallet. Shits going to get expensive if they get what they want.
 
I'd rather see ads everywhere than not be able to surf the web with speed
 
If I were president, I would pass a bill to block morons from becoming senators.

Net neutrality ftw.
 
Someone define, in simple terms, net neutrality, and what it implies for the general population. Krynn's example was too specific to be understood by the likes of me.


Until then, I have no opinion on this.
 
VirusType2 said:
We want neutrality, otherwise it will be worse than Fox news Internet controlled by the rich corporations, with increased prices that cut small business owners out of the picture. Very poor service speeds for those not aligned with the mega-corporation's interests.

The corporations invest millions in lobbying to kill net neutrality. In order to fight it, we need donations and signatures. You don't have to donate, but you can definitely spare 3 minutes every few months to sign petitions that make things happen.

No elected official wants to disappoint the millions of people who have signed a petition.

if you go here, to www.savetheinternet.com, you can get on a mailing list that will alert you once every couple of months. Usually you can help simply by signing your name and providing your email address. The rest of the text is pre-filled.
Click to expand...

gg American only signage.
 
15357 said:
Someone define, in simple terms, net neutrality, and what it implies for the general population. Krynn's example was too specific to be understood by the likes of me.


Until then, I have no opinion on this.
Click to expand...

mccain: comunists wants to use the internet to spread propaganda so we must control it to defend freedom and our kids from the evil of the world
 
As with the rape legislation, it's very difficult to understand how anyone could disagree with net neutrality regulation, or defend fighting it.
 
<RJMC> said:
mccain: comunists wants to use the internet to spread propaganda so we must control it to defend freedom and our kids from the evil of the world
Click to expand...

Sulkdodds said:
As with the rape legislation, it's very difficult to understand how anyone could disagree with net neutrality regulation, or defend fighting it.
Click to expand...

So either Mr. Sulky here is a communist and must be purged or I'm not getting anything.
 
Ravioli said:
Im very confused about the whole net neutrality thing. Some people say its to ensure ultimate freedom of the internet, making it so that no government nor business interest has authority over it, while some people say its the complete opposite.

Which is the truth? Im so freaking confused.
Click to expand...

this this this
 
Ravioli said:
Im very confused about the whole net neutrality thing. Some people say its to ensure ultimate freedom of the internet, making it so that no government nor business interest has authority over it, while some people say its the complete opposite.

Which is the truth? Im so freaking confused.
Click to expand...
Can I get some examples of these opposite nay-sayers? All I've seen so far is the former.

Anyway, not that hard to remember, just look at the name. Net neutrality, where no site is given any bandwidth bias over others.
 
I don't see how it applies to Australia anyway. If you imagine the rest of the world as a big, interconnected mass, with information flowing back and forth - incomprehensible volumes of data at insane speeds.
Then picture Australia. Connected by a single piece of frayed string.
 
I've read when they say it will hurt smaller networks to challenge rivals they are thinking that if everyone acts the same then they can't stick out. But this is from the big ISPs probably and I'm thinking so you mean they don't notice your messed up traffic shaping and flee to the other ISP (if there is another one around).
 
Sulkdodds said:
As with the rape legislation, it's very difficult to understand how anyone could disagree with net neutrality regulation, or defend fighting it.
Click to expand...

These words confuse me, and im thinking you intended it that way. If so, kudos, if not, please explain what you mean by "regulation" of net neutrality and what you mean by "defend fighting it," Thanks.
 
Sulkdodds to English

He means that there's just no good reason for someone to defend the act of fighting against net neutrality.
Net neutrality regulation, I think, means regulation that preserves neutrality on the internet.

This translation has been provided by Yahoo Babel Fish.
 
Did you see the Daily Show last night? Jon Stewart lampooned politicians who have come out against Net Neutrality, including Sen. John McCain, who introduced a bill that would derail the FCC’s proposed Net Neutrality rules. McCain also happens to receive more telco cash than any other member of Congress. Isn’t that interesting?
Click to expand...

Looking for 2 million letters to congress. Click on the 'take action' hotlink. (USA only)

http://www.savetheinternet.com/


Looking for 10,000 signatures to the FCC: (All countries may participate)

https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?id=363
Members of Congress Just Sold You Out

Last week, several dozen members of Congress put the interests of AT&T ahead of yours and signed a letter to the FCC opposing the agency's efforts to protect Net Neutrality.

AT&T and these members of Congress were hoping we wouldn’t notice this deception. Well, we did. And now we’re sending our own message:

Tell the FCC: Stand with the Public for Net Neutrality

We’re gathering 10,000 signatures to push back against the members of Congress who buckled under telecom industry pressure. We need you to send the FCC an urgent message of support for Net Neutrality.

Sign this letter and then tell your friends and neighbors to do the same.

The big phone and cable companies have launched an all-out assault to stop Net Neutrality. They've hired hundreds of lobbyists, spent tens of millions of dollars, and unleashed sleazy Astroturf groups to mislead politicians, distort the facts and resurrect long-debunked myths.

They’re scrambling to stop the FCC from even beginning to discuss making Net Neutrality the rule of the road. It's vitally important that the FCC take up this action to protect Net Neutrality as planned.

Tell the FCC to Stand Firm on Net Neutrality

Some members of Congress aren’t listening to the people they represent. We must remind them whom they really work for. Let’s send them a strong message today, and guarantee an open Internet for generations to come.

Thank you,
Click to expand...
 
VirusType2 said:
Looking for 2 million letters to congress. Click on the 'take action' hotlink. (USA only)

http://www.savetheinternet.com/


Looking for 10,000 signatures to the FCC: (All countries may participate)

https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?id=363
Click to expand...

Done and done.

Also, heres John Stewart on Net Neutrality and John McCain being a sleezebag.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-26-2009/from-here-to-neutrality

One of the bullshit things people against net neutraility say is that if net neutrality is passed then the government will control the internet. John McCain's bill is named "Internet Freedom Act" which is totally misleading because its allowing AT&T and others to own it and control it. Whereas if net neutrality is passed, it will simply mean no ISPs will be allowed to control bandwidth. Thats all. God damn it I hate politicians.
 
The big phone and cable companies have launched an all-out assault to stop Net Neutrality. They've hired hundreds of lobbyists, spent tens of millions of dollars, and unleashed sleazy Astroturf groups to mislead politicians, distort the facts and resurrect long-debunked myths.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of shit that drives me mad.


They have distorted the meaning of the word freedom now. Despicable. Any bill with the word "freedom" in the name, you better read the fine print.
 
Krynn72 said:
Done and done.

Also, heres John Stewart on Net Neutrality and John McCain being a sleezebag.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-26-2009/from-here-to-neutrality

One of the bullshit things people against net neutraility say is that if net neutrality is passed then the government will control the internet. John McCain's bill is named "Internet Freedom Act" which is totally misleading because its allowing AT&T and others to own it and control it. Whereas if net neutrality is passed, it will simply mean no ISPs will be allowed to control bandwidth. Thats all. God damn it I hate politicians.
Click to expand...

great video and can be informative to all those who don't read or follow the news
 
huntingbear said:
i want proof that the corporations will enact charging bandwidth if we doing net neutrality. I'm afraid of net neutrality

http://www.netcompetition.org/docs/pronetcomp/debunking-myths.shtml
Click to expand...

Well, I'm no expert, but so what if any of that is true on the front page. That's not news to anyone. Is that something you didn't realize? That people who pay for higher speed internet get higher speeds? It's just worded negatively to scare people away from net neutrality.

Check this out, friend:

Scott Cleland is the owner of netcompetition.org (the link you provided)
Cleland, McCurry and crew are citing widely discredited FCC data in a feeble attempt to demonstrate that the broadband marketplace is awash with competitors. This is more industry planted propaganda designed to clear a path for the phone and cable duopoly that accounts for more than 98% of all broadband access in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Scott Cleland said:
my website at netcompetition.org where I fully and prominently disclose who I work for -- the broadband industry!
Click to expand...
Scott Cleland said:
I certainly have "interests" in this debate -- I very publicly represent the broadband industry in the net neutrality debate and I strongly espouse a free market deregulatory perspective.
Click to expand...

Timothy Karr is president of Freepress.net and www.savetheinternet.com
Timothy Karr said:
Scott, I have watched/heard you speak in the media on numerous occasions without disclosing the source of your funding.

Don't you find it the least bit dishonest to present yourself as the one balanced and honest broker on this issue while failing to disclose that you're being paid to preach only one side of the story?

Can you honestly say that you have disclosed the source of your funding in all of your public appearances? Do you deny that you once trumpeted Net Neutrality and other protections against predatory phone companies in a way that you seem incapable of doing today?

It's a shame that you have sullied your honorable record and reversed your positions in order to make a buck from the likes of AT&T and their cohorts. Do you think these near monopolies in their respective markets really want NetCompetition?
Click to expand...

Source / full text and working links here:

http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2007/02/sock-puppet-redux.html
 
VirusType2 said:
Well, I'm no expert, but so what if any of that is true on the front page. That's not news to anyone. Is that something you didn't realize? That people who pay for higher speed internet get higher speeds? It's just worded negatively to scare people away from net neutrality.

Check this out, friend:

Scott Cleland is the owner of netcompetition.org (the link you provided)





Timothy Karr is president of Freepress.net and www.savetheinternet.com


Source / full text and working links here:

http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2007/02/sock-puppet-redux.html
Click to expand...



that bastard!

still I just am not convinced that, without net neutrality going through, companies will be chomping to start cutting up sections of the internet and only allowing certain parts to those who pay for those parts.
 
They have the monopoly. Most of us suspect they would do so, but even if you don't, the thought of them just being able to is enough reason for pants shitting.
 
daily show had some decent info on this topic the other day.
 
huntingbear said:
that bastard!

still I just am not convinced that, without net neutrality going through, companies will be chomping to start cutting up sections of the internet and only allowing certain parts to those who pay for those parts.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure they have 'business partners'. yahoo, google, microsoft, etc. They are all listed on the page you linked to...

Now, say some new search engine or some new thing comes along... twitter or some shit. Won't that be something when access to twitter is horrible (because of the biased access speeds), while .. .say google scrambles to create a competing application. So then google storms the market with this new twitter clone, (taking advantage of their fast internet speeds), and the designer of twitter is shit out of luck and can't compete.

Just a hypothetical scenario. This shit is bad news.

We need some regulation, just like with the cable TV, satellite, the telephone, 2 way radios, cellphones... everything. The FCC is regulating them all, so why should we fear them this time?

That's why they use scary phrases like "government getting control", instead of FCC. Telco spent tens of millions on this effort, and they are preying on ignorance.
 
huntingbear said:
i want proof that the corporations will enact charging bandwidth if we doing net neutrality.
Click to expand...

Hah. Haha.

Its already been happening. Time Warner jumped the gun and proved to everyone that cable providers are looking to set ridiculous limits on bandwidth usage. And other cable providers defended them when people got all up in arms over it.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2345370,00.asp

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/09/06/02/industry-analyst-internet-metering-going-happen


Its pretty much a sure thing that if we dont get net neutrality, we're going to get boned hard in the ass by cable companies.
 
Comcast tried it too and it backfired. Assholes!
Their speeds are already subpar and their shitty "service" is way too overpriced.
It's sad, really. Look at countries like Japan and Sweden. They are way ahead of us.
Some towns had already enough of this and started laying down their own fiber optic networks.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...n-your-town-threaten-to-roll-out-your-own.ars

That is why we need net neutrality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Omnomnick
Dota 2 "The Balance of Power" Update Revealed
Replies
0
Views
12K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Examining The Files Of "SteamVR Performance Test" & "Aperture Robot Repair"
Replies
27
Views
91K
MFL
MFL
Omnomnick
RTS Mod "Lambda Wars" Rebranded, Heads To Steam Greenlight & MOTY
Replies
5
Views
5K
Ennui
Ennui
Back
Top