Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
US House REJECTS net neutrality
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081882.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
Comments
[B]Greedy bastards... I really hope that this kind of legislation won't be applied in Europe as well. [/B][/QUOTE]
European Union does what US tolds EU to do.. Isnt that obvious?
And because 'we' are luckily part of EU, we are going to be screwed.
Maybe our spineless so-called-leaders can update their vocabilary with the word no...
I sent an email from the site [url]http://www.savetheinternet.com/[/url] to my Representative, Henry Hyde.
Here is the reply I got from him:
[quote]
May 25, 2006
Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX:
Thank you for writing to express your support for the retention of internet neutrality against for-profit interests. I appreciate the benefit of your views on this subject.
We all have witnessed the success of the internet and all that it does: brings families closer, grows economies, creates a new generation of entrepreneurs and increases access to information for people all over the world. Please rest assured that I will certainly keep your concerns in my mind when relevant legislation reaches the House floor for a vote.
Thank you again for writing concerning this important matter. It was good to hear from you.
Very Truly Yours,
Henry J. Hyde
[/quote]
Here are the voting results. A Nay vote is a vote against the Net Neutrality bill.
[url]http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml[/url]
Here is my reply to Representative Hyde:
[quote]
Representative Hyde,
I was extremely disappointed by your vote to allow large telecomm companies to begin giving special priveledges to certain websites of their own choosing. I will begin explaining to anyone who listens exactly what you and your party are doing as opposed to what you are saying.
[/quote]
Look at the vote by party lines. I expected the Republican thugs to sell us out, but I was very disappointed in the Democrats who jumped on board this travesty.
[b]
VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT!!
[/b]
[B]I sent an email from the site [url]http://www.savetheinternet.com/[/url] to my Representative, Henry Hyde.[/B][/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, sending emails don't do any good. Politicians are only likely to pay any attention to people who take the effort to send in a letter written on real paper with real ink. Even then there's no guarentee that they'll listen (and to be honest, they probably won't), but at least they won't be able to use an autoreply and can be expected to at least sign whatever reply you get. Forum posts, online petitions and emails mean nothing.
Look up their number and call their office. Write them a letter by hand. Visit them. Do something which requires some form of effort, and you'll get points.
However, I gave been posting on numerous boards about this and keeping my word to tell everyone I can.
Has anybody actually read COPE? frankly its most substantial change is requiring the VOIP people to support 911/E911.
Alot of links say it abandons "net neutrality" The other large section besides the VOIP stuff has to deal with national cable franchies and physical line issues, how the hell does that relate to net neutrality?
COPE despite all the hoopla doesnt drasticly change the status quo, so why is everybody freaking out over this?
Or are you reading the news blurbs, and turning off your own mind, instead of going to the source and reading the law? go to [URL=http://thomas.loc.gov/]Thomas[/URL] and do a search for H.R. 5252, and read it for yourselves and decide.
additonaly the Markey ammendment would have been even more strict then any european law, and could have done some serious damage, cause its sections b. (2) and (3) could be interprated that tieried service plans are now illegal. Now this is contradiction by a later section saying they still can, but its one of those things that lawyers are going to love, and its a complicated legal case waiting to happen.
Secondly congress has another "Net Neutrality" bill before it which is more limited in that what it does is it prevents discrimination based on [I]source[/I] or [I]destination[/I] Check out H.R. 5417 and read it, personaly I think its a much better law then the Markey ammendment.
[B]Unfortunately, sending emails don't do any good. Politicians are only likely to pay any attention to people who take the effort to send in a letter written on real paper with real ink. Even then there's no guarentee that they'll listen (and to be honest, they probably won't), but at least they won't be able to use an autoreply and can be expected to at least sign whatever reply you get. Forum posts, online petitions and emails mean nothing. [/B][/QUOTE]
I actually just got a reply from my representitive to the email i sent, it's so filled with political doubletalk that i'm not exactly sure what it says. but she did reply, in a real letter even. fancy that.
[B]There are exceptions to every rule. :p [/B][/QUOTE]
i was amazed that i got the reply to be honest.
[B]There are exceptions to every rule. :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Except for that rule :D
[B]Unfortunately, sending emails don't do any good. Politicians are only likely to pay any attention to people who take the effort to send in money promised on a real check with and signed with real corporate backing. Even then there's no guarentee that they'll listen (and to be honest, they probably won't), but at least they won't be able to use an autoreply and can be expected to at least sign whatever reply you get.[/B][/QUOTE]
Fixed.
I find it hard to believe their really is such a thing as Net Neutrality to begin with when you have companies and SIGs footing the bill for the backbones and bandwidth, and cross ocean connections etc.
Can the internet ever really be free range territory?
;)
I mean, even I draw the line at my computer. What is inside it is MY TERRITORY, and I am very interested in it's privacy.
:)
[B]Even if I agreed with your premise (and, well, I don't), those companies didn't pay for laying those lines. They were paid for by the government, and, by extension, the people. Those companies claiming that it was all them is revisionist history at its best. [/B][/QUOTE]
To each their own... I just think people in this day and age expect too much without accountability.
The golden rule... He who has the gold makes the rules.
I just think it's unrealistic to expect real freedom on the internet...
Now I’ll admit that I can't agree with the TeleComms on this issue. Even this article mentions it, "The new superhighway approach is favored by the large telecommunications companies that own the Internet pipelines, such as AT&T and Comcast. They say large-scale users of their networks should pay more for better service."
Excuse me, but doesn't Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc pay for their Internet connections? How much is a
[URL=http://www.infobahn.com/research-information.htm]T3 or OC3[/URL] again? So are they telling us the TelComms give away the data lines to Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc for FREE?! Or even just at cost? I highly doubt that.
Also, most of these big TeleComms, especially Comcast, are also huge PROVIDERS of content too. If memory serves, Comcasts big push lately is "On Demand" services. Hmm... I'm sure they'd just HATE to charge a fee to a company that offers video-on-demand over the Internet or some other service that competes with a Comcast product.
The "large-scale users" already pay for their faster service becuase you can run Google, Yahoo, Microsoft.com, or any other major Internet site on a dial-up connection! These companies already pay for their higher speed connections at their end and WE, the users, pay for ours at our end.
This is like AT&T telling you they will change you and extra quarter to call Pizza Hut or Pappa John's on a Friday night becuase of the extra load of the phone calls.
Think about it.
[url]http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/[/url]