Comments on: The Fight for Internet Freedom http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/ Firedoglake weblog Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:29:31 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Gridlock http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-78907 Gridlock Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:58:47 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-78907 <p>#88: And then Google would control what you get access to. Do you really put that much faith in Google?</p> <p>These telecoms companies make money by charging you, the end user, for access over ‘the last mile’ to the distributed entity that is “the internet”. Where do they get off saying that they are supporting other people’s business models “for free”?</p> <p>Are they talking about the infrastructure beyond the last mile?</p> #88: And then Google would control what you get access to. Do you really put that much faith in Google?

These telecoms companies make money by charging you, the end user, for access over ‘the last mile’ to the distributed entity that is “the internet”. Where do they get off saying that they are supporting other people’s business models “for free”?

Are they talking about the infrastructure beyond the last mile?

]]> By: Geoffrey Swenson http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-78140 Geoffrey Swenson Tue, 25 Apr 2006 02:51:09 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-78140 <p>If the telecoms succeed at getting this law passed, it will turn out to be their own undoing in the long run.</p> <p>As the real Robert X. Cringley (on PBS.org) said last week, Google owns a lot of dark fiber. They may be preparing to bid for a big chunck of wireless spectrum. Google certainly has enough money to win this bid, as they have 8 billion in the bank, and as a S&P 500 member, they can easily get more institutional investment to come up with yet more money.</p> <p>It would be very easy for Google to install transmitters connected to the dark fiber and make a high speed link to each of us with an inexpensive wireless receiver. They could easily get speeds that EXCEED cable and DSL to serve each an every one of us in the country this way without having to build the expensive “last mile” connection that the telecoms have been so loathe to invest in, preferring to milk their consumers as long as they can on the existing outmoded analog lines.</p> <p>The telephone and cable companies would be left holding a bag of nothing. Google could take over their entire business, including TV and telephone.</p> If the telecoms succeed at getting this law passed, it will turn out to be their own undoing in the long run.

As the real Robert X. Cringley (on PBS.org) said last week, Google owns a lot of dark fiber. They may be preparing to bid for a big chunck of wireless spectrum. Google certainly has enough money to win this bid, as they have 8 billion in the bank, and as a S&P 500 member, they can easily get more institutional investment to come up with yet more money.

It would be very easy for Google to install transmitters connected to the dark fiber and make a high speed link to each of us with an inexpensive wireless receiver. They could easily get speeds that EXCEED cable and DSL to serve each an every one of us in the country this way without having to build the expensive “last mile” connection that the telecoms have been so loathe to invest in, preferring to milk their consumers as long as they can on the existing outmoded analog lines.

The telephone and cable companies would be left holding a bag of nothing. Google could take over their entire business, including TV and telephone.

]]> By: siun http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-78134 siun Tue, 25 Apr 2006 02:46:17 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-78134 <p>roman eos - thanks for the link - I know this thread is EPUd but since there’s also a call for action out, I just wanted to add that the bill is not through committee workup yet. That process will be done tomorrow and Wednesday apparently - and the current text of the bill is unstable. Apparently a number of republicans pulled their support on April 3 so we may (may) be “reacting” to an older version of the bill. I’m going to call my congressman, Bobbie Rush, who is one of the sponsors tomorrow am to try and find out what is what. His one statement on the proposed bill includes a comment stating that it will clarify the FCC’s authority to protect net neutrality - and since he’s not a republican, I’m not sure he’s crafty enough to outright lie that way (though I’m making no $ bets at this point). I’m a bit uncomfortable with the very hype-y language being used on this. Many of us have seen the “death of the internet” many times before - and I want to make sure we know what we’re supporting before jumping into action.</p> roman eos – thanks for the link – I know this thread is EPUd but since there’s also a call for action out, I just wanted to add that the bill is not through committee workup yet. That process will be done tomorrow and Wednesday apparently – and the current text of the bill is unstable. Apparently a number of republicans pulled their support on April 3 so we may (may) be “reacting” to an older version of the bill. I’m going to call my congressman, Bobbie Rush, who is one of the sponsors tomorrow am to try and find out what is what. His one statement on the proposed bill includes a comment stating that it will clarify the FCC’s authority to protect net neutrality – and since he’s not a republican, I’m not sure he’s crafty enough to outright lie that way (though I’m making no $ bets at this point). I’m a bit uncomfortable with the very hype-y language being used on this. Many of us have seen the “death of the internet” many times before – and I want to make sure we know what we’re supporting before jumping into action.

]]> By: patience http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77848 patience Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:33:35 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77848 <p>Net Neutrality is more important than bush impeachment. It is literally the survival of independent discourse which is at stake here. The screaming must be loud to stop the train tomorrow, and this issue should remain under constant surveillance at the top of every bloggers page for the rest of our lives. This is Norquists Hill Mary, but he won’t give up if he loses. Look at the MPAA constant copyright legislation.</p> Net Neutrality is more important than bush impeachment. It is literally the survival of independent discourse which is at stake here. The screaming must be loud to stop the train tomorrow, and this issue should remain under constant surveillance at the top of every bloggers page for the rest of our lives. This is Norquists Hill Mary, but he won’t give up if he loses. Look at the MPAA constant copyright legislation.

]]> By: roman eos http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77770 roman eos Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:50:27 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77770 <p>Taylor,</p> <p>below was posting by this guy at Macworld on <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/news">www.publicknowledge.org/news</a></p> <p>it reads like the opposite of what you and mydd and others are saying, but he’s citing art brodsky and I’m wondering if something else isn’t going on here. Like have a couple of reps put up a counter-corporate bill..?</p> <p>too important to get folks confused over.. yes?</p> <p> As U.S. Congress debates on major telecommunications legislation, lawmakers are considering proposals that would prohibit large telecom providers from charging fees to online content companies that use their broadband networks.</p> <p> The measures would prevent the vendors from blocking services or providing slower download times for other vendors’ services.</p> <p>By Grant Gross, MacWorld</p> <p>=============</p> <p>it reads like the telcos already have these powers.. ??</p> Taylor,

below was posting by this guy at Macworld on http://www.publicknowledge.org/news

it reads like the opposite of what you and mydd and others are saying, but he’s citing art brodsky and I’m wondering if something else isn’t going on here. Like have a couple of reps put up a counter-corporate bill..?

too important to get folks confused over.. yes?

As U.S. Congress debates on major telecommunications legislation, lawmakers are considering proposals that would prohibit large telecom providers from charging fees to online content companies that use their broadband networks.

The measures would prevent the vendors from blocking services or providing slower download times for other vendors’ services.

By Grant Gross, MacWorld

=============

it reads like the telcos already have these powers.. ??

]]> By: John drd http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77740 John drd Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:31:35 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77740 <blockquote><p>Whoa…where did this come from? The Telecom and Antitrust Task Force of the House Judiciary Committee is slated to hold a hearing tomorrow on net neutrality. The line-up of witnesses is evenly divided between pro- and anti-net neutrality reguations:</p></blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.ipdemocracy.com/archives/2006/04/24/index.php#001458">IPDemocracy</a>A little competition, anyone?</p>

Whoa…where did this come from? The Telecom and Antitrust Task Force of the House Judiciary Committee is slated to hold a hearing tomorrow on net neutrality. The line-up of witnesses is evenly divided between pro- and anti-net neutrality reguations:

IPDemocracyA little competition, anyone?

]]> By: Trending Towards FutureShock http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77674 Trending Towards FutureShock Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:23:19 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77674 <p>[…] Update:  Taylor Marsh @ firedoglake puts things into perspective and it’s still not pretty. […]</p> […] Update:  Taylor Marsh @ firedoglake puts things into perspective and it’s still not pretty. […]

]]> By: iowa christine http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77586 iowa christine Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:27:19 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77586 <p>PS… or will be able to get a ‘volume’ discount (also known as sweetheart deals) from the ISP carriers.</p> PS… or will be able to get a ‘volume’ discount (also known as sweetheart deals) from the ISP carriers.

]]> By: iowa christine http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77580 iowa christine Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:26:05 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77580 <p>I’m willing to lay bets that the companies, like Wells Fargo, Amazon, etc, are just planning on passing the higher costs of bandwidth access on to their customers in the way of higher fees for their services.</p> I’m willing to lay bets that the companies, like Wells Fargo, Amazon, etc, are just planning on passing the higher costs of bandwidth access on to their customers in the way of higher fees for their services.

]]> By: readerOfTeaLeaves http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77510 readerOfTeaLeaves Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:44:53 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom/#comment-77510 <p>PJ Evans, As I understand this legislation, that is exactly the risk at present. I sent a shout to Adobe, BTW, who you’d think would be interested… nada.</p> <p>Meanwhile, Microsoft is distracted with EU hearings…</p> <p>And educators, BTW, are under strict rules about how much hell they can raise. So it’s up to corporations to stop this one, and they don’t seem to ‘get it.’ Wells Fargo, Citybank… you’d think they’d be hollering to put a stop to this. But perhaps their lobbyists fail to grasp the technical soft belly of what’s at risk here? </p> <p>That’s the best that I can figure.</p> PJ Evans, As I understand this legislation, that is exactly the risk at present. I sent a shout to Adobe, BTW, who you’d think would be interested… nada.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is distracted with EU hearings…

And educators, BTW, are under strict rules about how much hell they can raise. So it’s up to corporations to stop this one, and they don’t seem to ‘get it.’ Wells Fargo, Citybank… you’d think they’d be hollering to put a stop to this. But perhaps their lobbyists fail to grasp the technical soft belly of what’s at risk here?

That’s the best that I can figure.

]]>