REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Musicians Campaign for Net Neutrality

POSTED BY: DEEPGIRL187
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 4, 2007 07:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1423
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:54 AM

DEEPGIRL187


Wow, I think this is the first time I've actually posted a thread here. Anyway, thought folks might find this interesting:

http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/41623058

You might also want to look here:

http://www.futureofmusic.org/rockthenet/

*************************************************

"If you want to win a war, you must serve no master but your ambition."



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:57 AM

DAYVE


Thanks Deepgirl187 - good to see you down at this end of the board.

Net Neutrality is a serious topic of which we all should be aware. If we value the freedom of the internet as we know it now, we need to let our state representatives know how we feel about it, before the special interest groups with their deep pockets have the opportunity to influence lawmakers.

Here is another link - the article you noted from yahoo is also here, along with things we can do to help preserve neutrality of the internets...

http://www.freepress.net/news/

eta: yeah, i know i typed internetS - just a little jab at prez bush

onward through the fog

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:36 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Thanks for the links, deepgirl187.

It's important to point out that nothing has been won in the fight to preserve net neutrality. Anti-Net Neutrality legislation actually passed the House last year. And that same legislation came oh-so-very-close to passing in the Senate. I don't think there is enough support to actually pass Net Neutrality legislation in Congress (and override a Presidential veto) so all we can hope for on the federal level is detente.

The state level is another matter and that is where the battle has shifted. It is a top priority for the telecommunications industry (*edited to change from service providers) to pass anti-Net Neutrality legislation and they have deep deep pockets. Net Neutrality legislation has been introduced in Maryland and Maine and, hopefully, will soon be introduced in California. Without a federal law preserving net neutrality we'll need to pass laws in all fifty states and the anti-net neutrality corporations have the resources to successfully battle each and every attempt.

So if you live in Maryland or Maine write your state politicians and pin down their position. Or pressure your party to do what the Michigan Democratic Party did and enshrine Net Neutrality into the party platform. Or pressure your state politicians to introduce Net Neutrality in your own state. Or look up your local rep and see if they have received campaign contributions from the telecommunications industry and, if so, ask them what their position is on net neutrality.

Important fights take a long time. On the side of anti-net neutrality is power and money and influence. On the side of net neutrality is numbers. This is going to be an uphill battle for quite some time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:48 AM

DEEPGIRL187


I say this very, very rarely, but thank heavens I live in Michigan.

Hopefully now that prominent musicians are starting to get behind this issue, it will become more known to the general public. Most people, if you asked them, wouldn't have the slightest clue what Net Neutrality is.

*************************************************

"If you want to win a war, you must serve no master but your ambition."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:13 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Important fights take a long time. On the side of anti-net neutrality is power and money and influence. On the side of net neutrality is numbers. This is going to be an uphill battle for quite some time.


You still have not convinced me that its a good thing. Seems like alot of folk favoring Net-neutrality are turning a blind eye to copyright infringement, fraud, and child pornography. Even the wild west needed laws and a sherriff to protect folks and their property.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:22 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Even the wild west needed laws and a sherriff to protect folks and their property.

So who do you propose the sheriff should be? The US?



"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hero, how does your response relate to "net neutrality"? Porn, fraud and copyright protection have nothing to do with the issue so far as I can tell.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:08 AM

DEEPGIRL187


More importantly, are you willing to pay to be "protected" from those things, as well as only having access to sites that your internet provider chooses? If the big corporations have their way, it's possible that this site could be one of the ones we lose access to.

*************************************************

"If you want to win a war, you must serve no master but your ambition."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:04 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
You still have not convinced me that its a good thing. Seems like alot of folk favoring Net-neutrality are turning a blind eye to copyright infringement, fraud, and child pornography. Even the wild west needed laws and a sherriff to protect folks and their property.


My goal wasn't to convince people to support the concept of net neutrality, it was to convince net neutrality supporters to work for the passage of Net Neutrality legislation on the state level. Preaching to the choir, in other words. I see no margin in trying to convince someone who is predisposed to corporation-self-regulation that they should worry about, and take steps to protect, the little guy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:30 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero, how does your response relate to "net neutrality"? Porn, fraud and copyright protection have nothing to do with the issue so far as I can tell.


Well, I read the linked articles. One of the principals is that a person should
Quote:

be able to reach any website regardless of its origin...or block access to certain site for political reasons


Now all that sounds good until you look real close and see that out there behind all the independent rock groups, innovative commercial web businesses, and vast public consumin is the ugly side of the internet hiding in plain view.

Add some safeguards against illegal activity or activity that threatens the country's political, economic, and national security and you'll get a bit more support from folk like me. But the present anarchy enviroment of the internet is very bad for its long term viability. Its a new frontier and it deserves its freedom, but the laws are inevitable and neccessary to a civilized community.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:38 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I see no margin in trying to convince someone who is predisposed to corporation-self-regulation that they should worry about, and take steps to protect, the little guy.


Oh, I understand. You were trying to rally the 0.0003% of the population that support this idea. Good strategy. I prefer to try and expand those who support my policy goals by educating folk who don't know about or understand the issues (this can backfire since some folk once educated will respectfully choose to disagree with me) and convincing those folk who disagree with me to either change their minds or accept a reasonable compromise.

For example, I would be willing to support Net Neutral legislation that created safeguards against illegal activity especially involving the exploitation of children and/or copyright infringement.

You disagree?

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:20 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Oh, I understand. You were trying to rally the 0.0003% of the population that support this idea. Good strategy. I prefer to try and expand those who support my policy goals by educating folk who don't know about or understand the issues (this can backfire since some folk once educated will respectfully choose to disagree with me) and convincing those folk who disagree with me to either change their minds or accept a reasonable compromise.

For example, I would be willing to support Net Neutral legislation that created safeguards against illegal activity especially involving the exploitation of children and/or copyright infringement.

You disagree?


The optimist in me agrees.
The pessimist in me thinks that trying to convince some people that regulating is a good thing is a lost cause.
The pragmatist in me remembers a lot of time spent trying to persuade on other topics in this forum with negligible return on investment.
The snark in me is shocked, shocked that we don't have laws to deal with the exploitation of children and/or copyright infringement.
The hand-wringer in me shakes his head in sadness that those laws are not enforced.
The BBSer in me wants copyright to be valid for oh about eight seconds.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:29 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Add some safeguards against illegal activity or activity that threatens the country's political, economic, and national security

Spoken like a true brownshirt.

The internet is one of the LAST bastions of free speech, free enterprise, and disliked political affiliations, of course the status quo wish to strangle it.

I may dislike a lot of what happens there, but don't attack the tool for the actions of those who use the tool, that's the same bullshit that has stifled the 2nd amendment in this country, and it would be asinine to let it also happen to the 1st.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:11 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I must say I'm predisposed to support Net Neutrality now simply because of your post Frem. I think you're aware by now how the high regard in which I hold your opinions. Not sure how you take people singing your praises, so I'll just stop now by saying that it's just pretty rare for me to do is all....


That being said, I don't like making ill informed decisions or leaping before looking. I've read things about Net Neutrality and Anti-Net Neutrality and I have to admit that I'm completley befuddled (Something else that I rarely admit to).

Could somebody PLEASE explain Net Neutrality and it's counter legislation to me? I've never felt this lost about something since I was nearly flunking my Honors Chem class in High School. I do know that this issue seems VERY important to all of us and the future of the internet, but nether side, to me, seems to say that we just want to leave the Net the way it is today, which would be just fine with me.

The ads on TV both ways are confusing too because they both make sense, but I don't give them any more weight or credibility than a presidential campaign commercial. As much as they make sense to me they just reek of bullshit. Nothing but a bunch of soundbytes and rhetoric to further confuse us into making ill-informend decisions.

Any digestable information or links to such info would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

but nether side, to me, seems to say that we just want to leave the Net the way it is today, which would be just fine with me.

That's my take too, it ain't broke, don't go fixin it, especially not no heavy handed redtape legalese loaded government solution which'll just munge things up, create more jobs for the gov-employed parasites to leech from our taxes, more alphabet goons and goonsquads, and a loss of anything even remotely resembling efficiency.

Leave it the hell alone, I say.

Quote:

but I don't give them any more weight or credibility than a presidential campaign commercial. As much as they make sense to me they just reek of bullshit. Nothing but a bunch of soundbytes and rhetoric to further confuse us into making ill-informend decisions.

Nothin wrong with your BS detector, both "sides" want something OTHER than the collective anarchy that is truely is, and functions best as.

Blame the user, not the tool.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:24 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Maybe along with my BS detector my understanding of the topic is just fine too. I can't say I understand it, but I think that's the whole damn point.

R.I.P. Free Speech....

R.I.P. Internet as they originally sold it to us.


We're all hooked. They know we're not going anywhere no matter how they change it now.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:17 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I rather think in part, THAT issue may help solve itself, Jack.

I may not like the hacker community, but if there's one thing we agree on, it's that corpo control of the net is a bad bad thing, and free speech is a good one.

And if I had to chose between them and clueless government yahoos who can't get any decent hackers and techies to work for them since due to the very nature of such folk they are opposed to goverment jackboots.... well.

My money's on the hackers.

Imagine it as Strom Thurmond versus Linus Torvald in a DOOM II fragmatch.

Who would YOU bet on ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:57 PM

SOUPCATCHER


In a nutshell, 6ixStringJack, the argument is whether those who provide you with access to the internet should operate under a phone service provider framework or a cable service provider framework. My phone company does not have the right to decide which phone calls I receive. My cable company has the right to decide which cable channels I receive.

That's a huge oversimplification but I think it works as a conversation starter.

I do not support legislation allowing telecommunications companies to switch to a cable service provider framework. It sounds like you and I (and Frem and others) are in agreement on this part (and in disagreement with Hero). I support legislation preventing telecommunications companies from switching to a cable service provider framework. This is usually the point where Frem and I philosophically diverge on an issue. And I'm thinking that this is the part where you and I will disagree.

Hope that helps.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

My phone company does not have the right to decide which phone calls I receive. My cable company has the right to decide which cable channels I receive.

I recall something on the nature of those cable companies, when given such control, promising to let the smaller providers function and have their share - and I remember saying what those promises would amount to...

And, yanno, I distinctly recall being labelled a wacko for saying it.

And now, here we are, yon cable providers quite predictably reneged since there was never any protection or enforcement provisions.. part of the whole big companies spiel is how they "promise" to let the little guys have their share, and it's deja moo to me cause I smell that same BS all over again here.

Anyone see Comcast* or the like allowing smaller providers to use those lines your tax dollar in part paid for ?

This whole matter is the same, greedy corpos want a handout of other peoples stuff that they promise to share maybe sometime in the future, with no protections or provisions for enforcement - which means in the end they'll just take.

I'd support writing those protections into law only if they did not halfass it, load it with ten tons of pork as riders, and then slip in all kinds of loopholes at the 11th hour for their corpo lobbyist buddies.

Or, be re-interpreted to mean exactly the OPPOSITE of how it was written, as AOL did with Michigan Law Code when called out by Engler and Granholm for blatant violations in pandering to their freak friends, resulting in a direct injunction against enforcing the very laws AOL was willfully breaking. (No. 99-cv-73 150)

We've had some ugly, ugly fights up here over such things, and no matter who wins, the customers lose... case example.
http://www.freepress.net/news/19318
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7986
I don't agree with either end of the issue, mind.

Thing is, I don't trust either side of this to do the job right without hanging us out to dry, is all.. if I thought we had a workable solution that would improve matters, I'd get behind it.

-Frem

* If you ever wanted to see how scummy a corp can be, Comcast is a prime example, I know stuff about them that'd curl your hair, with reams of solid, hard evidence to prove it, but no one has the balls to prosecute them for it - they once took out a fullpage local ad in a threatening tone demanding the residents of farmington remove the mayor cause they didn't get an exploitive monopoly contract, and when they were angrily rebuffed, retaliated with a long series of 'maintainence" outages for the next month or so, once of which was at least 10 days, if I recall.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:12 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Erk, I was referring to the COPE act above, wasn't real clear on that.

A fairly clear explaination of the matter can be found HERE, Jack.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

They gotta write it better than S.2917 though, if they want my support.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:47 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Great posts Frem... I haven't read the articles yet, but I'll get to them. I was halfway through a post in another thread when it really picked up here at work. I wanna give this the attention it diserves. I did read about Comcast pulling a bunch of crap in the northern suburbs of Chicago before and the residents fighting against it. I can't remember the name of the IT guy the local government had there fighting Comcast, but I remember thinking how much like Mal he reminded me of (at least how the reporter made him sound). Should be some pretty interesting reads.

SoupCatcher... Thanks for breaking it down into a conversation starter. I've heard it said similarly before but I just can't get my head around that breakdown. It seems that the more broke down the issue becomes the more of a no-brainer it is, while the more complicated it becomes the harder it would be to make any choice here at all.

I reserve the right to change my opinion once I become more informed, but I gotta go with my gut now and just say that the slimey bastards at both ends are trying to stick it to us first.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 7:52 AM

DAYVE


this from the University of Texas newspaper The Daily Texan

It's about FCCing time
The dissolution of network neutrality and the FCC's equally damaging time lag in addressing the issue is incredibly harmful to the Internet we enjoy today.

By Maria Cesar

Quote:

Last Thursday, the Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, an independent government organization which oversees all non-federal communications agencies and implements policy, decided to launch an inquiry into the much-debated issue of Internet network neutrality. The inquiry showcases the FCC's foot-dragging approach to tackling an issue that demands immediate action in order to prevent abuse, or worse - negligence.

Network neutrality is the most fundamentally underlying concept behind the Internet, ensuring that all content is handled equally, regardless of its source or ownership. It is the reason we are able to view, at the same speed, both the smallest blog and the largest corporate Web site.

Major corporations, such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner, own the fiber-optic cables used to transmit data that act as the backbone of the modern Internet. In 2005, SBC CEO Ed Whiteacre reasoned that in order to see a return on his fiber-optic cable investment, he would charge customers for their connection to Internet service providers, or ISPs, and then charge content providers (Google, Ebay, etc.) for access to those customers.

Those who don't want to pay this "royalty" would be subjected to slower speeds, less visibility and decreased functionality. In addition, these network providers, without net neutrality, would be able to completely block access to their competitors.

If it's a money thing for Whiteacre and his contemporaries, let's look at the numbers. The combined annual revenues of AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner and Comcast exceed $200 billion.

Profit above all else and discrimination aren't the only forces Internet users would have to reckon with; the very structure of the Internet would be challenged.

SavetheInternet.com, a nonprofit organization made up of hundreds of groups from a diverse political and social spectrum, posits that the Internet's openness has served as a catalyst for economic innovation, fueled democratic participation and buoyed free speech.

All of this is at stake.



article here:
http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2007
/04/04/Opinion/Its-About.Fccing.Time-2822168.shtml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL