posted April 09, 2010 10:47 PM         

the free market ethic which brought us rupert murdoch and fox network, corporate entertainment and much much more, to have a free hand at what we are allowed to access?

sounds peachy, right?

posted April 10, 2010 10:46 AM         

I do not need the federal government attempting to silence those on the Internet with whom they disagree.

Neither did I need Google attempts to funnel searches to those with whom they agreed...like the main stream media.

By all means, let's sign petitions for the federal government, through the FCC, to silence those with whom they disagree by limiting their rights to free speech.

posted April 10, 2010 12:22 PM         

google may funnel your searches but there are other engines. do you really want to have to pay to find those other engines? to read your favourite blogger? or see them removed altogether from the fray because they can't pay the license fee?

" Net neutrality means everyone is equal on the net. When everyone isn’t equal, some companies will try to yank the chains of other companies and battles will ensue, keeping this debate in the courts for years."

posted April 10, 2010 02:41 PM         

I suppose that for those who must seek the opinions they hold...from others, it's natural to assume everyone else must do so too.

I really don't need anyone to tell me what to think...or how to think.

Most days..and nights, my television is not even turned on.

My radio is almost always tuned to 105.5FM, which plays easy listening music which doesn't interfere with my concentration while I'm working or doing research.

I don't need to listen to Limbaugh or Hannity or anyone else to be aware the FCC tried to shut down talk radio with the so called "Fairness Doctrine"...which said in effect..."since no one is willing to listen to the Marxist Socialist twits on talk radio, we must balance the scales by shutting down successful conservative voices...which also just happen to be ripping our little Socialist butts.

Now, they've tried to do the same thing with the Internet...and gotten their heads handed to them by a federal court.

posted April 10, 2010 03:48 PM         

of course those who subscribe to the highest bidder form of govt can't see anything wrong with the internet going the same way. as i recall the govt rejected the push for the fairness doctrine.

posted April 10, 2010 04:19 PM         

Leading UK ISP Says It Will Defy Governments Net Censorship Bill

Related Reading: Death Of The Internet: Unprecedented Censorship Bill Passes in UK

A leading internet service provider in the UK has declared that it will refuse to follow government orders to restrict, slow down or cut off its customers’ internet access under rules set out in Lord Mandelson’s (pictured) Digital Economy Bill.

The provider, TalkTalk, which has over 4 million internet users, has declared the legislation “draconian” and says it will not cooperate with its provisions.

Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk’s director of strategy and regulation has said the company will repel any instructions to disconnect customers unless instructed to by the courts.

“If we are instructed to disconnect an account due to alleged copyright infringement we will refuse to do so and tell the rightsholders we’ll see them in court.” Heaney wrote on the company blog.

Heaney also makes it clear that TalkTalk will not turn over details of its customers’ online activities to the government.

“Unless we are served with a court order we will never surrender a customer’s details to rightsholders. We are the only major ISP to have taken this stance and we will maintain it,” Heaney asserted.

Under the legislation, the government will impose a duty on ISPs to effectively spy on all their customers by keeping records of the websites they have visited and the material they have downloaded. The bill states that ISPs who refuse to cooperate could be fined ÂŁ250,000.

Heaney described the provisions in the legislation as a pretext to communist China style internet censorship:

“…many draconian proposals remain such as the responsibility on customers to protect their home networks from hacking at a collection cost of hundreds of millions of pounds a year, the presumption that they are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent, and, as in China, the potential for legitimate search engines and websites to be blocked.” he urged.

Heaney added that TalkTalk will “continue to battle against these oppressive proposals”, pointing out that the Digital Economy Bill measures will require secondary legislation before they can be implemented and made law.

The TalkTalk director also highlighted the fact that the bill was passed under considerable influence from the record and film industries and that only five per cent of MPs even bothered to turn up to debate the bill in Parliament.

“This is made all the more appalling by the ability of big music and film companies to influence government and the absence of any proper debate or scrutiny by MPs – only 5% of MPs turned up for the brief debate yesterday and the other important parliamentary stages will be bypassed in the wash-up process,” Heaney concluded.

The bill was universally lauded by the music industry, after it was rushed through the legislative procedure via the “wash up” process. No wonder, given the fact that a key amendment of the bill was drafted by the BPI, which represents UK major record labels.
Leading UK ISP Says It Will Defy Governments Net Censorship Bill 090410DEB
During the process, it was revealed that Stephen Timms, the minister for Digital Britain, was under the impression that “IP address” referred to “intellectual property”, rather than internet protocol, highlighting just how outmoded and ignorant of their actions ministers are on this issue.

The Digital Economy Bill became the Digital Economy Act overnight, as it was given Royal Assent and formerly passed into law.

The majority of the Act’s provisions will come into effect in two months, with some effective immediately. As previously indicated, the online infringement of copyright provisions of the Act will require secondary legislation before they can be implemented.

The British law firm Eversheds commented:

“We can expect opposition to intensify as the clampdown on copyright infringement begins in earnest and consumers find themselves accused of breaking the law. Meanwhile some commentators have already pointed out that technology savvy infringers can – and will – take steps to circumvent detection, leaving open the question, who is the government really targeting?”

Mass protests against the Act will continue with online campaign site 38 Degrees, working in conjunction with digital liberties watchdog The Open Rights Group.

Jim Killock, executive director of ORG called the passage of the bill “an utter disgrace”, adding “This is an attack on everyone’s right to communicate, work and gain an education. Politicians have shown themselves to be incompetent and completely out of touch with an entire generation’s values. There are thousands of activists working with ORG planning to show up at hustings, demand answers from candidates, and who are willing to punish those who voted for this at the ballot box.”

TalkTalk has its own campaign against the Digital Economy Act at www.dontdisconnect.us
http://www.infowars.com/leading-uk-isp-says-it-will-defy-governments-net-censorship-bill/

posted April 10, 2010 05:43 PM         

Before Limbaugh was
Before Hannity was
Before Fox News was....

I was telling members on this forum and others that Barack Hussein O'Bomber is a Marxist Socialist empty suit, full of hot air with a totally made up persona.

I didn't need to listen to Limbaugh, Hannity or watch Fox News to know this is true. I've heard the same kind of bullshiiit coming out of Marxist Socialist mouths for more than a generation.

If Limbaugh, Hannity or anyone at Fox News had been saying what I was saying at that time...it would have been all over Drudge and other sites I visit....and it wasn't.

posted April 10, 2010 09:41 PM         

believe it or not you strike me as a nice bloke who really cares, though very closed-minded about what is american.

and believe it or not i have a lot of the same concerns, though i got over the 50's era communist bogeyman a long time ago. i don't want to see govt getting too big but sometimes without a little regulation and stimulation the guys with the big money try to sew it up and put all the little'uns out of business. it is not just too much govt that creates this, but too little.

temporary govt jobs may not be "real" jobs in your eyes, but they put money in people's pockets so they can buy from other people who are hurting too. the effect is a snowballing growth which create more jobs in the sectors that are hurting most.

the govt LOANED money to the car cos, and the banks are starting to repay too, if only to get out from under the conditions the money signed them up for. that was the whole point. i don't actually see obama socializing this country. socialism - real socialism - is, like democracy, of and by and for the people, not the oligarchs. it was MEANT to get rid of the oligarchs. the fact that there is corruption on both sides never seems to occur to you, and i wonder why someone with your apparent brainpower and experience can be so sure that NO regulation is the panacea for everything. it has led to big money squeezing out little money every time!

anyway, off topic obviously.

LTT's post shows what a mess the governors can make of protecting our rights on the internet!! every day i get closer to outright anarchy...after all that is COMPLETE lack of regulation. i will just revert to pirate tactics and disappear from public view forever.

at this point in time it seems to me that we are ALL caught between the devil and the inferno. i have suggested lots of times that we try and find common ground and DO something about it. not by following yet more supposed leaders but by doing it ourselves....

posted April 10, 2010 11:50 PM         

The FCC lost a suit Comcast filed. Comcast wished to limit customers from certain kinds of internet use (the sharing of large files), and the FCC fought on the consumer's behalf.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_internet_rules

posted April 11, 2010 12:57 PM         

quote:

---

we are ALL caught between the devil and the inferno

---

"There must be someway out of here, said the Joker to the Thief."

------------------
We cannot seek or attain health, wealth, learning, justice or kindness in general. Action is always specific, concrete, individualized, unique. --Benjamin Jowett

posted April 12, 2010 08:30 AM         

If the feds can regulate the Internet...then the feds can also tax every element of Internet use...just as they do residential electric, gas and phone service.

The Court told the federal government to keep it's long, bony, busybody nose out of the business of Internet providers and users.

Those who don't like Comcast or Comcast policies have a wide variety of other providers from which to choose.

The O'Bomber administration was/is attempting to get it's federal foot in the door and needs an excuse to regulate and tax Internet services.

Say, wasn't it O'Bomber who said if he was elected he wouldn't raise taxes a single dime on those making under $250,000 per year?

Yep! Yep! Yep!

Just 20% Support Federal Internet Taxes
Sunday, April 11, 2010

The Obama administration recently released its proposed plan for government regulation of the Internet that includes federal taxes on digital goods and services.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 20% of Americans favor the federal government taxing goods and services on the Internet. Sixty-one percent (61%) oppose such taxes. Another 19% are undecided....

posted April 12, 2010 10:02 AM         

The FCC...part of the Executive Branch of government attempted to tell Comcast what they can and cannot do...which was an attempt to get regulatory authority over...not only Comcast but all Internet providers.

Further, O'Bomber has proposed to "Regulate AND Tax" Internet users and providers.

Those are the dots...and they're lined up in a straight row so, they shouldn't be too difficult to connect.

posted April 12, 2010 11:51 AM         

The FCC suit against Comcast was an attempt to tell Comcast what they can charge users of their service...and thereby gain regulatory control over the Internet. A leftist wet dream for years now.

The users who use a great deal more bandwidth would be charged more.

It's they, who don't want to pay their fair share of the cost of providing service for everyone.

So, a guy goes into a gas station and screeches, whines and shrieks because it cost him more to fill up his Hummer than it cost another guy to fill up his lawnmower.

It's absolutely none of government's business to tell private enterprise what they can charge for their services.

If you don't like the service or the cost of the service...call up the company, tell them to F-Off and take your business elsewhere.

posted April 12, 2010 11:57 AM         

quote:

---

The FCC suit against Comcast was an attempt to tell Comcast what they can charge users of their service

---

No, it wasn't.

That's what I said I was afraid of happening as a result of this lawsuit, but the case wasn't about regulating how much Comcast charges. If such pricing packages were to emerge from this, however, we might indeed see the FCC try to regulate the pricing as it is their goal to bring broadband access to more Americans.

posted April 13, 2010 09:34 PM         

quote:

---

The suit had nothing to do with taxes or taxing. It was only about whether Comcast had the right to restrict their customer's usage

---

Comcast has gone into a too big to fail category in that they have the money to get the ruling. This effects regulations down the road. RE: The disclosure of speeds that everyone talks about. This is another area where the West is behind many other countries where the internet is faster and cheaper than here.....sound familiar?

highest bidder ethic-Kat