Quote:

---

["A broadband company could, for instance, ink a deal with Microsoft to transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com. The only recourse a user would have, under the ruling, would be to switch to a different provider -- assuming, of course, they had an alternative to switch to."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I want the Gov't out of my internets.


Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor


Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

---

Quote:

---

DARPA's initial role was to jump start American research in technology, find safeguards against a space-based missile attack and to reclaim the technological lead from the USSR. After only 18 months after the creation of DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency had developed and deployed the first US satellite. DARPA went on to have a direct contribution to the development of the Internet by appointing Joseph Licklider to head the new Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO).
It was the job of the IPTO to further the work previously done by members of the "SAGE" (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) program and develop technologies to protect the US against a space-based nuclear attack.
Licklider envisaged the potential benefits of a countrywide communications network, influencing his successors to implement his vision and to hire Lawrence Roberts who at that time was carrying out research with networks which was also being funded by DARPA.
Roberts led development of the ARPANet network architecture, and based it on the new idea of packet switching. A special computer called an Interface Message Processor was developed to realise the design. The ARPANet first went live in October 1969, with communications between the University of California in Los Angeles and the Stanford Research Institute.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I disagree, Story - I got a list of dirt on Comcast you'd find hard to believe, up to and including them taking out an ad in a local paper *demanding* the residents of Farmington, MI recall their mayor for not handing them a total monopoly - and then retaliating severely when rebuffed.

I don't care for the idea of Gov regulation either, but in this case it's using a pair of evils to grind each other up instead of us.



-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Uh....that's why I was being sarcastic-like.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Makes one feel kinda like the cow as the two butchers argue over hamburger vs steak, dunnit ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
That's funny, Rappy, since government INVENTED the internet. You sound like the guy who didn't want government to interfere with his Medicare.

---

Quote:

---

Gov't did not " invent " the internet.

---

Quote:

---

William (Bill) Yeager is 66 and still gets peeved when someone trots out the Silicon Valley fable about how the founders of Cisco invented the router. He was the guy at Stanford University that made it happen.

---

Quote:

---

It was private sector ingenuity that took the idea and ran with it....

---

Quote:

---

It's about the free transfer of information. YOU want it to be controlled by the Gov't ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Gov't did not " invent " the internet.

---

Yes,it did. It was a defense project to create an uninterruptable communication system that could be used in times of warfare. The concept was that data packets could be sent out on different pathways ... even use satellite communication... and still be reintegrated at the end. If you will notice, the initial players (besides DARPA) were universities. The first US satellite communication was by the government. The first geosynchronous comsats were launched by NASA (which BTW are still in orbit). The idea of geosynchronous orbits was first explored by soviet (government) rocket scientists and proposed by a science fiction write; Arthur Clarke. The launch vehicles were all government (Thor and Delta rockets) Even the router (CISCO) was invented by a university geek, Bill Yeager. Unfortunately,

Quote:

---

William (Bill) Yeager is 66 and still gets peeved when someone trots out the Silicon Valley fable about how the founders of Cisco invented the router. He was the guy at Stanford University that made it happen.

---

www.networkworld.com/supp/2006/anniversary/032706-routerman.html

So AFA the "invention" of the internet, business was nowhere involved. Your denial is limitless, but at least other people can learn the facts, even if you can't.

Quote:

---

It was private sector ingenuity that took the idea and ran with it....

---

There is a difference between inventing something and implementing it. But in the case of the internet, business did not do the main share of implementation. In fact, most of the servers worldwide run on some version of Linux and Sun, which are free software, and the protocols are agreed on by international standards bodies. www.w3.org www.isc.org

Funny thing is, business CAN take credit for blue-sky research... but you just haven't figured out what that was. Hint: Not the internet.

Quote:

---

It's about the free transfer of information. YOU want it to be controlled by the Gov't ?

---

Here's the thing, Rappy: The government doesn't want the internet controlled by ANYONE. It's like the free speech clause in the Constitution. I know it's a little hard for you to grasp, since you seem to think that freedom drips from corporations like honey, but the government is trying to guarantee your totally unfettered access to the lines of communication.

You? Sheesh. Get some knowledge goin', boy, 'cause you don't know which side your bread is buttered on.

Or you're a big-time stock player, and you DO know, and you think we're stupid enough to buy your crap. Either way, go shovel it elsewhere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

It's about the free transfer of information. YOU want it to be controlled by the Gov't ?

---

Here's the thing, Rappy: The government doesn't want the internet controlled by ANYONE. It's like the free speech clause in the Constitution. I know it's a little hard for you to grasp, since you seem to think that freedom drips from corporations like honey, but the government is trying to guarantee your totally unfettered access to the lines of communication.

You? Sheesh. Get some knowledge goin', boy, 'cause you don't know which side your bread is buttered on.

Or you're a big-time stock player, and you DO know, and you think we're stupid enough to buy your crap. Either way, go shovel it elsewhere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy: And you trust YOUR freedom to Comcast? I have NEVER seen a corporation write anything like the Constitution, staking a claim that you have a RIGHT to free speech... or any other rights, for that matter! Have you? If you have, please post them here. Take your time. I'll wait.

The issue is very clear: Is your access to the internet provided by the free market or COMPLETELY controlled by the Imperial Federal Gov't.

That is the immediate question in front of you.

---

Quote:

---

In this case, the government is acting properly ... performing its proper duties as a government... by standing up for YOUR RIGHTS to unbiased access versus business rights to control your access to internet content.

You're such a corporate today, you'd give your individual rights (and ours too) to the corporations.

Sheesh.

Talk about selling your soul.

---

Quote:

---

Freedom of the Press means no Gov't intervention.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, do you have your head up your ass for the warmth?

---

Quote:

---

"Net neutrality" is NOT about the government controlling internet content. It's not some sort of "fairness doctrine". The question is whether or not the owners of the physical lines, routers etc can determine the content on those lines. Can Comcast make this site inaccessible? Can AT&T make Google inaccessible? Can SBC block Amazon?

Net neutrality simply requires that "the net" simply treat all traffic equally, no matter the source or destination.

And what's YOUR argument? That the line owners SHOULD be able to determine what get communicated and to whom? That's a little like saying that Verizon should be able to prevent you from calling into the AT&T network!

In this case, the government is NOT banning free speech. What it is doing is ensuring free speech by ensuring equal access.

Like Mr. Universe said "You can't stop the signal, Mal". Only, you want to, Rappy.

---

Quote:

---

The interests in the free market dictates taht what the public wants the public can get. If not, they'll go elsewhere

---

Quote:

---

Under Gov't control ( and yes, that is what we're talking about here ) , you have no real say in the matter.

---

Quote:

---

I believe Rush recently visited The Czech Republic, but you can read that for yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM: Again, you've got it 100% backwards. The government is not (in this case) seeking to "control" anything. And do you think you'd REALLY have a say in the matter if Comcast had control of your content?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, who controls your internet access as of this point? Verizon? AT&T? Comcast? SBC? And if they start monkeying with your content, who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters? And where ya gonna go? Costa Rica?

---

Quote:

---

You depend on a business SOMEWHERE for basic access to communication. SOMEBODY owns the phone lines, the fiberoptics, the satellites. Sooner or later, you have to depend on SOME physical infrastructure. Do you want THEM controlling where you go, and what you see? And if you don't, what are your options? That is the question.

Anyway, out of here for today.

---

Quote:

---

Wait..we have choices? More than 1 option for internet? Huh. Not what you alleged before.

---

Quote:

---

I trust the free market FAR more than I trust the Government. Always.

---

Quote:

---

The Founders were of like mind, too. Try and remember that, if ya can.

---

Quote:

---

After independence, corporations received their charters from states and the charters were for a limited period, like 20 or 30 years, not in perpetuity. They were only allowed to deal in one commodity, they could not hold stock in other corporations, their property holdings were limited to what was necessary for their business, their headquarters had to be located in the state of their principle business, monopolies had their charges regulated by the state, and all corporate documents were open to the legislature. Any political contribution by a corporation was treated as a criminal offence.Corporations could, and often did, have their charters removed if the state considered that their activities harmed its people.

---

Quote:

---

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

---

Quote:

---

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

---

Quote:

---

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I learned something today! Hope I remember it. My memory is getting increasingly untrustworthy, and it was never that good to begin with.

The indecipherable sticky notes are the worst. Was I supposed to understand them somehow? Maybe they were put there by future me instead of past me, and the reason they don't make sense is because I don't have the necessary experience to understand them. Either way, I don't remember putting them there. And I really wish whoever is doing it would stop writing in CODE. Goddamn.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Irony being if a Republican was in the White House, Rappy would be going on about how necessary it is for the Gov. to be involved in the internet for security reasons.

---

Quote:

---

Compelling, but non persuasive. The interests in the free market dictates taht what the public wants, the public can get. If not, they'll go elsewhere. Under Gov't control ( and yes, that is what we're talking about here ) , you have no real say in the matter.

---

Quote:

---

This is the very essence of freedom. The WHY the internet poses such a risk to big Government.

---

Quote:

---

Who is it, in SERENITY, which tries to hide their tracks, and limit access ? The Alliance, ( aka - The Imperial Federal GOv't ) ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well Rappy, thankfully you've gotten off the mantra that the Founding Fathers were rabid corporatists. Let us not speak of it again.

---

Quote:

---

You make an excellent point on the incestuous relationship between governments and corporations. Save for one aspect. In the end of the day, it's the Gov't which can shut down and do away with a corporation far easier than can be done the other way around.

---

Quote:

---

That was your interpretation of my view, not what I was saying. But showing the Founders were wary of big corporate entities doesn't then conclude that they weren't just as wary, or more so, of an over- reaching federal government.

---

Quote:

---

A couple months ago the Supreme Court ruled that restricting corporate political spending amounted to restricting free speech. In this view, corporations are pretty much equivalent to people. Would that have seemed reasonable to the Founding Fathers?

In a word, no.

I read this opinion carefully — I'm trained as a historian, not a lawyer. Chief Justice Roberts lays out an ideologically pure view of corporations as associations of citizens — leveling differences between companies, schools and other groups. So in his view Boeing is no different from Harvard, which is no different from the NAACP, or Citizens United, or my local neighborhood civic association. It's lovely prose, but as a matter of history the majority is simply wrong.

Let me put it this way: the Founders did not confuse Boston's Sons of Liberty with the British East India Company. They could distinguish among different varieties of association — and they understood that corporate personhood was a legal fiction that was limited to a courtroom. It wasn't literal. Corporations could not vote or hold office. They held property, and to enable a shifting group of shareholders to hold that property over time and to sue and be sued in court, they were granted this fictive personhood in a limited legal context.

Early Americans had a far more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of corporations than the Court gives them credit for. They were much more comfortable with retaining pre-Revolutionary city or school charters than with creating new corporations that would concentrate economic and political power in potentially unaccountable institutions. When you read Madison in particular, you see that he wasn't blindly hostile to banks during his fight with Alexander Hamilton over the Bank of the United States. Instead, he's worried about the unchecked power of accumulations of capital that come with creating a class of bankers.

So even as this generation of Americans became comfortable with the idea of using the corporate form as a way to set priorities and mobilize capital, they did their best to make sure that those institutions were subordinate to elected officials and representative government. They saw corporations as corrupting influences on both the economy at large and on government — that's why they described the East India Company as imperium in imperio, a sort of "state within a state." This wasn't an outcome they were looking to replicate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Government takes input in the form of a vote.

---

Quote:

---

Oh, it takes input, but at the end of the day, it's even more likely to do what ever the hell it wants.

---

Quote:

---

I'm unhappy at the Gov't ignoring the will of the people on HCR.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I'm unhappy at the Gov't ignoring the will of the people on HCR.

---

Me too. The will of the people was for a PUBLIC OPTION.

---

Quote:

---

Your views were in the MINORITY. Sorry Rappy, but that is a fact. You can mentally run and you can mentally hide, but it doesn't change reality.

But if you will notice a pattern, where the government deviates from "the will of the people" it is to the benefit of BIG BUSINESS. Since big business seems to be your patron saint... what's your problem?

---