04-25-2006, 04:35 AM
Pages: 1 2
04-25-2006, 05:01 AM
Petition?
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
Necratoid
04-25-2006, 05:18 AM
Quote:*blinks*
The companies say that they will create premium lanes on the Internet for higher fees, and give preferential access to their own services and those who can afford extra charges. The rest of us will be left to use an inferior version of the Internet.
I thought this was already true... dial up is cheaper than cable modems.
04-25-2006, 02:03 PM
Worse than that, N. Read the article. They'll simply block access to sites that don't pay higher rates. Or "lose" their packets.
-- Bob
---------
For Jor-El so loved the Earth, he sent his only begotten son...
-- Bob
---------
For Jor-El so loved the Earth, he sent his only begotten son...
Necratoid
04-25-2006, 04:39 PM
Quote:From the info given its still dial up verses cable as currently is. Its just going to be a new level of the preexisting structures. dial up, slow cable, fast cable. Like it or not its a matter of making offical a preexisting structure. If you want to acknowledge that the system already works this way or not its your own problem.
give preferential access to their own services and those who can afford extra charges
The question comes down to if they have the 20 dollar cable, the 50 dollar cable, or the 100 dollar cable as the good stuff. If for example they make a new 20 dollar sucky level of cable its an improvement for us that already are at the 50 dollar level. They make the 50 dollar level the sucky thats a problem. However it makes more sense to have the AOL 20 dollar suck level so more people are on the internet then pricing out half their customer base.
I'll fall to paranoia after they do something stupid like go to the fewer people that pay more model. Not before they do anything.
04-25-2006, 05:03 PM
www.savetheinternet.com/=threat
Now on feeding your paranoia, here is a small section of a pertinent passage.
(Reproduced from the above site.)
Corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:
In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
Shaw, a major Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers who want to use a competing Internet telephone service.
In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they'll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet.
Now on feeding your paranoia, here is a small section of a pertinent passage.
(Reproduced from the above site.)
Corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:
In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
Shaw, a major Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers who want to use a competing Internet telephone service.
In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they'll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet.
Necratoid
04-25-2006, 05:45 PM
Canada banned (I don't know if its still banned) Fox News as to dangerous to the government or something. Canada requires a certain percentage of Canadian programing (quality irrelivant.) Canada never became a real country... the 'country' is a territory of Brittan. Lets ignore Canada here.
AOL is made of stupid. AOL makes its own software incompatable with itself. IF they did make AOL e-mail cost money... people would just send a text file to each other over instant messanger. AOL is so badly programmed they couldn't stop people from using prgrams that explote the massive holes in their software.
If e-mail cost money they'd develope something else instead that is still free.
Stupid question... but if your paying for all the bandwidth and equipment... doesn't having another company using your lines for free mean your paying for their profits. Seriously... its like being charged by the gallon for water and having your neighbor tap your line and water his yard into a swamp during a drought. I'd ban other companies from using my equipment with no feedback money too.
Any examples I'd not be able to counter in twelve seconds?
AOL is made of stupid. AOL makes its own software incompatable with itself. IF they did make AOL e-mail cost money... people would just send a text file to each other over instant messanger. AOL is so badly programmed they couldn't stop people from using prgrams that explote the massive holes in their software.
If e-mail cost money they'd develope something else instead that is still free.
Stupid question... but if your paying for all the bandwidth and equipment... doesn't having another company using your lines for free mean your paying for their profits. Seriously... its like being charged by the gallon for water and having your neighbor tap your line and water his yard into a swamp during a drought. I'd ban other companies from using my equipment with no feedback money too.
Any examples I'd not be able to counter in twelve seconds?
04-25-2006, 07:21 PM
Fox news is not banned in Canada; the application to broadcast was denied initially in 2004 as it was improperly filed. Once it was properly filed it was approved. It was not blocked because it was dangerous to the government. It was not blocked because Bill OReilly has beaver/loofah fantasies. It was blocked because someone was too lazy to actually RTFM; which is pretty much the same situation you find yourself in for bringing to point up in the first place. Canada does require a certain percentage of Canadian programming. Why you ask? It should be obvious. The concentration of media ownership in any given area is highly dangerous to free speech; and rigorously protected in the United States until the Reagan presidency, where the rules were steadily eroded.
AOL is a corporation. Not a single entity. The AOL example is of one of many cited as an occurrence of the malfeasance shown by corporations in the deliberate obstruction of free speech. Rather than whether a dissenting opinion, or seek redress through the courts, they acted unilaterally, and illegally. Picture UPS stopping a package of DVDs before they reach your door because someone in management does not particularly like anime.
E-mail does cost money. I suppose that you could, in a moment of Abbey Hoffman like inspiration gain completely free e-mail; provided that you use someone elses computer, internet connection, web-space, etc. It still isnt free, you just arent paying for it directly. In some cases this is paid for by advertisers, or services connected to the e-mail service. The costs are hidden, rather than doled out stamp by stamp like postage.
You (by you I am assuming you are referring to the cable/companies) are paying for the bandwidth and equipment. That is correct. You are then leasing them out to different groups. This could be a company that hosts a website and pays you for the bandwidth that they use. This could be a home user that connects to the internet, and pays you for the bandwidth that you use. Your water analogy simply put, does not hold water; as both you and your neighbor pay for that usage separately. Picture this one. You contract with the water company for water. The water company decides, without consulting you, that you should be getting Campbells Chunky Soup in your pipes because Campbells pays them a great deal of money. So the next time you turn on your shower, you get a unique shampoo that eats like a meal. The role of the cable companies is to provide the pipe not to decide the priority of what goes through the pipe.
Finally your previous comments about dial up versus cable are pretty much moot as they are ultimately democratic. All of the media in the pipe that you buy comes at the same speed; regardless of its source. Under the proposed legislation; the cable/dial up company decides what comes faster or slower. That is a rather significant difference.
AOL is a corporation. Not a single entity. The AOL example is of one of many cited as an occurrence of the malfeasance shown by corporations in the deliberate obstruction of free speech. Rather than whether a dissenting opinion, or seek redress through the courts, they acted unilaterally, and illegally. Picture UPS stopping a package of DVDs before they reach your door because someone in management does not particularly like anime.
E-mail does cost money. I suppose that you could, in a moment of Abbey Hoffman like inspiration gain completely free e-mail; provided that you use someone elses computer, internet connection, web-space, etc. It still isnt free, you just arent paying for it directly. In some cases this is paid for by advertisers, or services connected to the e-mail service. The costs are hidden, rather than doled out stamp by stamp like postage.
You (by you I am assuming you are referring to the cable/companies) are paying for the bandwidth and equipment. That is correct. You are then leasing them out to different groups. This could be a company that hosts a website and pays you for the bandwidth that they use. This could be a home user that connects to the internet, and pays you for the bandwidth that you use. Your water analogy simply put, does not hold water; as both you and your neighbor pay for that usage separately. Picture this one. You contract with the water company for water. The water company decides, without consulting you, that you should be getting Campbells Chunky Soup in your pipes because Campbells pays them a great deal of money. So the next time you turn on your shower, you get a unique shampoo that eats like a meal. The role of the cable companies is to provide the pipe not to decide the priority of what goes through the pipe.
Finally your previous comments about dial up versus cable are pretty much moot as they are ultimately democratic. All of the media in the pipe that you buy comes at the same speed; regardless of its source. Under the proposed legislation; the cable/dial up company decides what comes faster or slower. That is a rather significant difference.
Necratoid
04-25-2006, 11:20 PM
Quote:Hence the reason that I said he spliced into your line here:
Your water analogy simply put, does not hold water; as both you and your neighbor pay for that usage separately.
Quote:I live in a state where you can choose your power provider on the public grid. Any plant can sell more power than they produce. All the power is in the grid so it is impossible to prove whose power it is.
having your neighbor tap your line and water his yard into a swamp
Quote:No, the internet service costs money. Yo pay the same currently if you send 0 e-mails or 500,000,000 e-mails a day. If we are paying per e-mail sent... that is when we pay for e-mail. Hence a simple counter of sending text message file via an instant messenger. E-mail is only one thing you can do to get your moneys worth. If it did your original point is nonsensical, as youd be openly complaining that each e-mail will cost money when it already did. The connection costs money.
E-mail does cost money.
Currently you pay for the price you pay it is your job to get your money's worth from the service. You pay the same for both levels of e-mail sending. If AOL wants to charge per e-mail let them the service that doesnt will get their customers.
Quote:Those standards only effect the broadcast channels. CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, and other networks. That and publicly broadcasted. If you pay for the service it can show anything it wants. You could have a basic cable channel that showed nothing but naked Emo idiots cutting themselves and angsting or the Bondage, Furry Porn Network. That is legal. The problem is a station needs two things to survive: An audience and an income source. If people won't watch the channel can't get advertisers. If the company isn't getting its advertisement money back through sales it won't advertise with that network. That and few corporations would want to be known as the proud sponsor of the BFPN.
rigorously protected in the United States until the Reagan presidency, where the rules were steadily eroded.
The same is true of public radio. The Broadcast rules apply. Pay radio they dont they place all sorts of broadcast illegal things. TV cable can show anything it wants... they just don't. The Regan Era might have killed the quality of SNL, but thats public broadcast. Its the taste of the public that hurts or helps cable.
Quote:Your deluded. The difference between dial up and cable is that cable is faster and dial up eats your phone line. Slow broadband is the new dial up. Dial up is going to the land of the buggy whip. Dial up is advertising like mad... the reason for doing so it one of two reasons.
All of the media in the pipe that you buy comes at the same speed; regardless of its source. Under the proposed legislation; the cable/dial up company decides what comes faster or slower. That is a rather significant difference.
1) You have gobs of cash incoming and can expand the service so call for new clients.
2) Your going broke and need for clients.
Dial up is not a rapidly growing market. Dial up is dying off.
Do you have any proof that they aren't going to make cheaper broadband? Do you have anything, but conjecture that the current model is the slow stuff? So far your showing more confusion over the market forces then solid issues.
I've never heard of a petition working anyway... spamming the Senators e-mail and phone service works much better.
Astynax
04-26-2006, 07:20 AM
Necratoid, two things.
Firstly, the issue is not with an end user pricing structure, i.e. I pay $20 for X speed, you pay $50 for Y which is some order of magnitude fatser. I think most folks can live with that. The issue is a company no longer being a neutral carrier, so they not only charge you your $50, but also charge various other parties premiums for you to be able to access the other parties' content at your full speed. This leads to a situation where I may have paid for uber-DSL++, but only get original recipe DSL speeds from some sites because they haven't paid their FastLane(tm) fees. Essentially, I am no longer getting what I'm paying for.
Secondly, and more woryingly, it changes providers from common carriers, completely oblivious to the content flowing through their pipes, to aware entities that can censor information flow. This opens all sorts of worm cans (legal and moral.)
And might I add, you have a worrying degree of trust in soulless, valueless corporate entities to do the right thing. Frankly, anything that gives ANY entity other than the individual more power should be regarded as a bad thing, since onyl individuals have consciences.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Firstly, the issue is not with an end user pricing structure, i.e. I pay $20 for X speed, you pay $50 for Y which is some order of magnitude fatser. I think most folks can live with that. The issue is a company no longer being a neutral carrier, so they not only charge you your $50, but also charge various other parties premiums for you to be able to access the other parties' content at your full speed. This leads to a situation where I may have paid for uber-DSL++, but only get original recipe DSL speeds from some sites because they haven't paid their FastLane(tm) fees. Essentially, I am no longer getting what I'm paying for.
Secondly, and more woryingly, it changes providers from common carriers, completely oblivious to the content flowing through their pipes, to aware entities that can censor information flow. This opens all sorts of worm cans (legal and moral.)
And might I add, you have a worrying degree of trust in soulless, valueless corporate entities to do the right thing. Frankly, anything that gives ANY entity other than the individual more power should be regarded as a bad thing, since onyl individuals have consciences.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Necratoid
04-26-2006, 07:40 AM
Quote:Paranoid conjecture.
Essentially, I am no longer getting what I'm paying for.
Quote:No. What I trust that these soulless corporations want to actually make money. Alienating most of your customers seems like a rather stupid idea in that regard. You all seem to believe the first thing they will do is go all scorched Earth. Getting 2/3 of your clients to to leave in disgust helps them how exactly?
And might I add, you have a worrying degree of trust in soulless, valueless corporate entities to do the right thing.
Money drives the soulless corporations. Hurting and offending people who are possible customers is bad practice. Sell expensive items to small groups makes money. Selling more less expensive items to far more people makes far more money.
Fun as crushing the permanently victimized 'little guy' is... its just not profitable. If AOL makes you pay for each for e-mail and the other service won't people are going to switch.
Doing the 'right thing' isn't what I trust soulless corporations to do. Making prophits is what I expect them to do.
04-26-2006, 01:52 PM
Your deluded. The difference between dial up and cable is that cable is faster and dial up eats your phone line. Slow broadband is the new dial up. Dial up is going to the land of the buggy whip. Dial up is advertising like mad... the reason for doing so it one of two reasons.
Why do I feel like I am explaining dry sheets to a bed-wetter? This isn't about dial up vrs broadband. The pipe (Dial/broadband/two-can-on-a-string) is irrelevant; the pipe changes constantly from the venerable semaphore flags to radio to dial-up to broadband to laser relay. It is the control of the content that is at issue; not the pipe that the content flows through. It is obvious that you have not read the source material thoroughly.
Now, as you so brazenly stated, corporations are out to make money. That is true. They also have to keep their clients happy or they will find another service provider. That is not necessarily true; as it is now possible for a single corporation to be the only game in town for internet services. The smaller the population center you hail from, the more difficult it is to find an alternate provider.
Now, on the subject of corporations and money, here is another interesting bit of information from the IS front. Once you control what is flowing through the pipe, you are responsible for what is flowing through the pipe. The legal implications of this are very far reaching; especially as most US laws on pornography are based around a fatuous notion called contemporary community standards. This means that you are enforcing a law on a nebulous, undefined, concept. Expect very loud and vocal groups to be loudly protesting thing that they dont like; and the internet providers moving to block them for everyone. Likewise political dissent; social dissent or alternate news feeds. This isnt paranoia at all; merely good business. The article cited earlier shows some rather piquant examples of this behavior and this is before legislation was introduced to allow such behavior.
E-mail does cost money.
No, the internet service costs money. Yo pay the same currently if you send 0 e-mails or 500,000,000 e-mails a day. If we are paying per e-mail sent... that is when we pay for e-mail. Hence a simple counter of sending text message file via an instant messenger. E-mail is only one thing you can do to get your moneys worth. If it did your original point is nonsensical, as youd be openly complaining that each e-mail will cost money when it already did. The connection costs money.
Yep. More sheets to a bed-wetter. You do not pay the same currently if you send 0 e-mails or 5000,000,000 e-mails. Your contract is for a certain amount of bandwidth; at a certain speed; for a certain period. How you use it is completely up to you. You are still paying for it in one form or another. Your IM Text Message is the same deal. You are paying for the pipe you place the message in; not the message itself; 500,000,000 text messages are the same as 500,0000,000 e-mail messages.
Do you have any proof that they aren't going to make cheaper broadband? Do you have anything, but conjecture that the current model is the slow stuff? So far your showing more confusion over the market forces then solid issues.
There is always going to be a faster, cheaper, solution in the future; that is the nature of the technology. Once again you have missed the whole point of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act. The rules lobbied for by the various corporations are not being laid out with the intention of increasing competition. They are laid of with the intent to craft an environment that they can profit more from. It is law that is not written for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the corporations.
Shayne
Why do I feel like I am explaining dry sheets to a bed-wetter? This isn't about dial up vrs broadband. The pipe (Dial/broadband/two-can-on-a-string) is irrelevant; the pipe changes constantly from the venerable semaphore flags to radio to dial-up to broadband to laser relay. It is the control of the content that is at issue; not the pipe that the content flows through. It is obvious that you have not read the source material thoroughly.
Now, as you so brazenly stated, corporations are out to make money. That is true. They also have to keep their clients happy or they will find another service provider. That is not necessarily true; as it is now possible for a single corporation to be the only game in town for internet services. The smaller the population center you hail from, the more difficult it is to find an alternate provider.
Now, on the subject of corporations and money, here is another interesting bit of information from the IS front. Once you control what is flowing through the pipe, you are responsible for what is flowing through the pipe. The legal implications of this are very far reaching; especially as most US laws on pornography are based around a fatuous notion called contemporary community standards. This means that you are enforcing a law on a nebulous, undefined, concept. Expect very loud and vocal groups to be loudly protesting thing that they dont like; and the internet providers moving to block them for everyone. Likewise political dissent; social dissent or alternate news feeds. This isnt paranoia at all; merely good business. The article cited earlier shows some rather piquant examples of this behavior and this is before legislation was introduced to allow such behavior.
E-mail does cost money.
No, the internet service costs money. Yo pay the same currently if you send 0 e-mails or 500,000,000 e-mails a day. If we are paying per e-mail sent... that is when we pay for e-mail. Hence a simple counter of sending text message file via an instant messenger. E-mail is only one thing you can do to get your moneys worth. If it did your original point is nonsensical, as youd be openly complaining that each e-mail will cost money when it already did. The connection costs money.
Yep. More sheets to a bed-wetter. You do not pay the same currently if you send 0 e-mails or 5000,000,000 e-mails. Your contract is for a certain amount of bandwidth; at a certain speed; for a certain period. How you use it is completely up to you. You are still paying for it in one form or another. Your IM Text Message is the same deal. You are paying for the pipe you place the message in; not the message itself; 500,000,000 text messages are the same as 500,0000,000 e-mail messages.
Do you have any proof that they aren't going to make cheaper broadband? Do you have anything, but conjecture that the current model is the slow stuff? So far your showing more confusion over the market forces then solid issues.
There is always going to be a faster, cheaper, solution in the future; that is the nature of the technology. Once again you have missed the whole point of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act. The rules lobbied for by the various corporations are not being laid out with the intention of increasing competition. They are laid of with the intent to craft an environment that they can profit more from. It is law that is not written for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the corporations.
Shayne
04-26-2006, 04:51 PM
Quote:Indeed.
Now, on the subject of corporations and money, here is another interesting bit of information from the IS front. Once you control what is flowing through the pipe, you are responsible for what is flowing through the pipe. The legal implications of this are very far reaching; especially as most US laws on pornography are based around a fatuous notion called contemporary community standards. This means that you are enforcing a law on a nebulous, undefined, concept. Expect very loud and vocal groups to be loudly protesting thing that they dont like; and the internet providers moving to block them for everyone. Likewise political dissent; social dissent or alternate news feeds. This isnt paranoia at all; merely good business. The article cited earlier shows some rather piquant examples of this behavior and this is before legislation was introduced to allow such behavior.
As it stands now, an ISP has Common Carrier status, same as a telephone provider. What this means is that they hold no liability wrt what their users do with that service.
The Common Carrier principle is based on the fact that a provider has no knowledge of what the customers do with their service, and thus no responsibility to act on it.
This law undercuts that by making that knowledge available to the carrier. Once it is accepted that that knowledge is available to the carrier, the legal responsibility to act on it exists.
Hypothetical scenario: A group uses e-mail to plan a get-together so that they can commit a crime. A Common-Carrier provider has no idea what they're doing and no responsibility to act on it. A non-CC provider, however, is liable for the use to which their service is put, and can be charged as an accessory to the crime for having facilitated it.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Necratoid
04-26-2006, 07:27 PM
Shane... stop miming everything I say I know what I said... its directly above what you said. Seriously... I'm not to stupid to use a scroll bar. Stop. At least take out your own quoted material.
Considering that the internet should be more free after the government losses control. The only thing that would oppress it is if the companies do it themselves. That is the debate point in the end.
Granted Norway has a point. They will have to police it more for crimes or face law suits. Which is just a symptom of the largest problem with internet. Children.
All the oppression software is to protect children. The most publicized crimes on the net are people trying to date/abduct children. The regulation on the net is to protect children.
The stuff that isn't about children is all about copyright protection issues. Seriously... the man who invented the internet had a large hand in putting in unfiltered in every class room in America. His boss had a hand in making it unsafe for the children flooding the internet.
The money in nerfing the internet is in selling software to protect children. Selling the keys to the not children area is a limited market. Selling endless nerfing of the internet instead is a guaranteed large market. Not only can you sell to parents, but the government itself. Glee a twofer. And fees per computer. That is hundreds of guaranteed packages per school.
It is more profitable to the let the internet run more wild. Then sell security software to concerned parents. Children are the problem with the internet. The largest bit of the rest is a matter of the fallout of Napster refusing to take stolen recordings of their next album. That was the issue. The rest is blood in the water from that.
An example is that when taxes lower, lower taxes mean that people do more deals. More deals... more tax revenue. Higher taxes, means less deals. Less taxes collected.
Feeing to death the internet is not in the best interests of the companies. They make more money with lower fees on far more transactions, then high fees on a decreasing level of sales. Promoting the growth of the internet will do great things for their bottom line. Nerfing it to death will not. You do not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Quote:Err... what? The fact these nebulous standards are enforceable only because the government makes it so... and the government is losing control. That means that there will be MORE porn and politics on the internet. It will make the internet less regulated... like cable TV and pay radio.
This isnt paranoia at all; merely good business.
Considering that the internet should be more free after the government losses control. The only thing that would oppress it is if the companies do it themselves. That is the debate point in the end.
Granted Norway has a point. They will have to police it more for crimes or face law suits. Which is just a symptom of the largest problem with internet. Children.
All the oppression software is to protect children. The most publicized crimes on the net are people trying to date/abduct children. The regulation on the net is to protect children.
The stuff that isn't about children is all about copyright protection issues. Seriously... the man who invented the internet had a large hand in putting in unfiltered in every class room in America. His boss had a hand in making it unsafe for the children flooding the internet.
The money in nerfing the internet is in selling software to protect children. Selling the keys to the not children area is a limited market. Selling endless nerfing of the internet instead is a guaranteed large market. Not only can you sell to parents, but the government itself. Glee a twofer. And fees per computer. That is hundreds of guaranteed packages per school.
It is more profitable to the let the internet run more wild. Then sell security software to concerned parents. Children are the problem with the internet. The largest bit of the rest is a matter of the fallout of Napster refusing to take stolen recordings of their next album. That was the issue. The rest is blood in the water from that.
Quote:This segment is drivel... seriously. I'm paying for the bandwidth... not the E-mail. You logic exscapes me. The AOL plan this is related to was the AOL wanted to charge for both. I'm starting to think the miming is for your benefit not anyone elses. Keep up with your own points at least.
Yep. More sheets to a bed-wetter.
Quote:What benifits the company then? Making more money. To make more money from the internet... have more business on it. That is reality.
It is law that is not written for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the corporations.
An example is that when taxes lower, lower taxes mean that people do more deals. More deals... more tax revenue. Higher taxes, means less deals. Less taxes collected.
Feeing to death the internet is not in the best interests of the companies. They make more money with lower fees on far more transactions, then high fees on a decreasing level of sales. Promoting the growth of the internet will do great things for their bottom line. Nerfing it to death will not. You do not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
04-26-2006, 08:01 PM
Quote:Two problems.
Feeing to death the internet is not in the best interests of the companies. They make more money with lower fees on far more transactions, then high fees on a decreasing level of sales. Promoting the growth of the internet will do great things for their bottom line. Nerfing it to death will not. You do not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
1 - Corporations do not operate in a vacuum, but are instead susceptible to pressure from, say, power-hungry juntas that've lied their way into office. Those profit-motive groups of which this is not true are called 'cartels'. Or 'mobs'. Or whatever. They don't, as a rule, own infrastructure, which is part of the point, here.
2 - Corporate entities, viewed as organisms, are demonstrably not that smart.
Ja, -n
===============================================
"Puripuri puripuri... Bang!"
04-27-2006, 02:40 PM
Necratoid, not too stupid to use the scroll bar? Sunshine, I wouldnt believe you capable of breathing without a walkman and a looped taped instructing you to inhale and exhale. However, as I am addressing specific points, I will lay them out to ease confusion.
Necra-quote: The only thing that would oppress it is if the companies do it themselves.
Of course they will do it themselves. Fiduciary responsibility dictates this. If you can screw your competition by denying or restricting access to their services, or provide an additional layer of difficulty in accessing those services, you do it. That is fiduciary ethics. That is how business works. This is why there is such a big deal with Microsoft and anti-competitive processes.
Necra-quote: His boss had a hand in making it unsafe for the children flooding the internet.
Do you let any child out in an unsupervised area and expect them to be safe? Crank open the can of Maxwell house and slam your snout into it. Do you let them out onto the streets to run about without supervision; or without ground rules. You might have heard them. Look both ways before your cross. Dont talk to strangers. Dont eat the yellow snow? The police are also available to ensure that the rules are followed; but the police are not responsible for your children. You are.
Necratoid The money in nerfing the internet is in selling software to protect the children.
Are totally ignorant? The money in this new model is gained by offering competition leg-ups to deep pocket corporations and services that want to be sure that their traffic has priority over all other traffic. Legislate the need; and then fulfill it. Net-Nanny software is a mere drop in the bucket. It is an economic non-starter, especially when compared to office business software, anti-virus, etc. So no, protecting the children is not the money-shot in nerfing the internet. Children are also not the problem with the internet. Parents letting them use it unsupervised are.
Necra-quote: The only thing that would oppress it is if the companies do it themselves.
Of course they will do it themselves. Fiduciary responsibility dictates this. If you can screw your competition by denying or restricting access to their services, or provide an additional layer of difficulty in accessing those services, you do it. That is fiduciary ethics. That is how business works. This is why there is such a big deal with Microsoft and anti-competitive processes.
Necra-quote: His boss had a hand in making it unsafe for the children flooding the internet.
Do you let any child out in an unsupervised area and expect them to be safe? Crank open the can of Maxwell house and slam your snout into it. Do you let them out onto the streets to run about without supervision; or without ground rules. You might have heard them. Look both ways before your cross. Dont talk to strangers. Dont eat the yellow snow? The police are also available to ensure that the rules are followed; but the police are not responsible for your children. You are.
Necratoid The money in nerfing the internet is in selling software to protect the children.
Are totally ignorant? The money in this new model is gained by offering competition leg-ups to deep pocket corporations and services that want to be sure that their traffic has priority over all other traffic. Legislate the need; and then fulfill it. Net-Nanny software is a mere drop in the bucket. It is an economic non-starter, especially when compared to office business software, anti-virus, etc. So no, protecting the children is not the money-shot in nerfing the internet. Children are also not the problem with the internet. Parents letting them use it unsupervised are.
Necratoid
04-27-2006, 09:11 PM
Rev, your obviously someone that that feels very strongly about this issue. However, when you have to resort to personal insults and being loud and intimidating to get your point across... you've already lost. You also alienate the other people in the conversation and the area your preaching in. People that don't already have on your side are only going to agree with you long enough to get away from the ranting crazy person.
I am not totally ignorant. However I lack omniscience... so there are by default things I don't know. Most of what you have said is visceral anti-corporate hate speak. It runs on the assumption that I already agree with you.
You seem to have some access to a totalitarian internet business plan. Otherwise your just making propagandic speech based on paranoia of the coming social apocalypse. As you have failed to provide such links and insider information, I can't agree with you at this point.
I am not blindingly pro-corporate. I am not a plant here to make you comply with the business plans of those corporations. I simply can't sue people and then make them suffer for what they may do.
If they do do it, they I'll be happy to let them burn for it. Until such a time I can't be bothered to raise my blood pressure in a fit of rage over it.
I rechecked the links provided hoping for some insight to your panic inducing reagent. I have reread the links all the info in the links. Didnt find it. Checked the internet and C-span the vote isnt existent. I started to suspect I was seeing an actual conspiracy. The internet was advertised as doomed today! How could this be? So I looked for the source of the panic in what I could find.
So I started reading the comments on the news article in the first link and I know your problem! I know the secret! The internet as we know it is not ending. Sorry. I found the terrifying law in question:
energycommerce.house.gov/...02_XML.pdf
What is happening. The item of panic is a bill leaving a comity. This is not a threat, yet. This is just a bill agreed to by a small group. It will be amended. Here is what you are missing:
www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html
This is a first level character that is being advertised as an epic, Warlord. This is the pandemic bird flu. It could be a threat it is not now, but it could be. It exists. It has the potential to be a threat. It is not currently a threat. Only a potential threat.
E-mail, phone, letter, whatever your states congress people tell them what you think of this bill as it is. DO NOT PANIC at this time. Do not riot. Do not kill people, this includes yourself. Do not lose sleep over this.
This was misrepresented to me. This was panic being used to influence action.
I'm not proclaiming that corporations are innocent or pure hearted. I'm simply stating that this idea they're going to kill the internet on general principle is wrong. It makes no sense. Granted Ted Turner and AOL are involved. So he may try to nerf the internet again mostly again his political opponents.
I believe after reading the comity bill that the offending item is in order. The first section is on page 31. Subheader (4) FUNCTIONALLY INTEGRATED SERVICES and (5) AFFILIATE REVENUE. These are sections saying that these integrated services count as revenue for tax purposes.
Then on page 32 it mentions it again under Section 602 of the Communications Act 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522) is amended- , subsection page 33 (6) the term cable service means subheader (B). Forums should be covered under the additional sub header of (1) as they are solely interactive on-demand services. That or the following subheader of (iii) any information service.
Therefore Forums are not part of cable services most internet things are covered under that heading that are news and politics. Free speech is covered here.
They are adding in requirements I like. Page 24 has (1) Child Pornography this forces the companies to not allow kiddie porn on the internet. Pages 38-47 are a law forcing that internet phone must have functioning 9-11 service. This starts with TITLE III-VOIP/911. This bill is not exclusively to screw over the internet.
Its not until pages 49-50 that anything else really mattersAt this point is the last two pages of the bill comes in with TITLEV-BROADBAND SERVICE. This is the offending bit. It is rather short partially for reasons of things covered above.
It does state that you must get an average download rate of 1 meg every 5 seconds. If your not getting to download the internet at that speed they are not providing you with Broadband. Therefore are in violation of the contract you have with them about them providing you with Broadband for money.
So if they do make the Broadband uselessly slow with a multi tier system.. every person being screwed can cost them up to a half million a piece. One hundred people means up to 50 million in fines. 1000 is up to 500 million.
So just for the sake of argument what specifically do you want added to the bill by your congress person? If you state anything that sounds like Infernos idea of what should happen to corporations I shall be forced call the nice young men in the clean white coats on you.
I am not totally ignorant. However I lack omniscience... so there are by default things I don't know. Most of what you have said is visceral anti-corporate hate speak. It runs on the assumption that I already agree with you.
You seem to have some access to a totalitarian internet business plan. Otherwise your just making propagandic speech based on paranoia of the coming social apocalypse. As you have failed to provide such links and insider information, I can't agree with you at this point.
I am not blindingly pro-corporate. I am not a plant here to make you comply with the business plans of those corporations. I simply can't sue people and then make them suffer for what they may do.
If they do do it, they I'll be happy to let them burn for it. Until such a time I can't be bothered to raise my blood pressure in a fit of rage over it.
I rechecked the links provided hoping for some insight to your panic inducing reagent. I have reread the links all the info in the links. Didnt find it. Checked the internet and C-span the vote isnt existent. I started to suspect I was seeing an actual conspiracy. The internet was advertised as doomed today! How could this be? So I looked for the source of the panic in what I could find.
So I started reading the comments on the news article in the first link and I know your problem! I know the secret! The internet as we know it is not ending. Sorry. I found the terrifying law in question:
energycommerce.house.gov/...02_XML.pdf
What is happening. The item of panic is a bill leaving a comity. This is not a threat, yet. This is just a bill agreed to by a small group. It will be amended. Here is what you are missing:
www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html
This is a first level character that is being advertised as an epic, Warlord. This is the pandemic bird flu. It could be a threat it is not now, but it could be. It exists. It has the potential to be a threat. It is not currently a threat. Only a potential threat.
E-mail, phone, letter, whatever your states congress people tell them what you think of this bill as it is. DO NOT PANIC at this time. Do not riot. Do not kill people, this includes yourself. Do not lose sleep over this.
This was misrepresented to me. This was panic being used to influence action.
Quote:
Do you let any child out in an unsupervised area and expect them to be safe?
Quote:You have my point down already. Which is the people that sue are the same ones that expect their children to be raised by TV/cable/everyone, but them. They are mostly interested in having other people raise their kids for them. See the episode of South Park in which the parents don't care about death incarnate hunting them as they are too busy protecting them from Terrance and Philip.
Children are also not the problem with the internet. Parents letting them use it unsupervised are.
I'm not proclaiming that corporations are innocent or pure hearted. I'm simply stating that this idea they're going to kill the internet on general principle is wrong. It makes no sense. Granted Ted Turner and AOL are involved. So he may try to nerf the internet again mostly again his political opponents.
I believe after reading the comity bill that the offending item is in order. The first section is on page 31. Subheader (4) FUNCTIONALLY INTEGRATED SERVICES and (5) AFFILIATE REVENUE. These are sections saying that these integrated services count as revenue for tax purposes.
Then on page 32 it mentions it again under Section 602 of the Communications Act 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522) is amended- , subsection page 33 (6) the term cable service means subheader (B). Forums should be covered under the additional sub header of (1) as they are solely interactive on-demand services. That or the following subheader of (iii) any information service.
Therefore Forums are not part of cable services most internet things are covered under that heading that are news and politics. Free speech is covered here.
They are adding in requirements I like. Page 24 has (1) Child Pornography this forces the companies to not allow kiddie porn on the internet. Pages 38-47 are a law forcing that internet phone must have functioning 9-11 service. This starts with TITLE III-VOIP/911. This bill is not exclusively to screw over the internet.
Its not until pages 49-50 that anything else really mattersAt this point is the last two pages of the bill comes in with TITLEV-BROADBAND SERVICE. This is the offending bit. It is rather short partially for reasons of things covered above.
It does state that you must get an average download rate of 1 meg every 5 seconds. If your not getting to download the internet at that speed they are not providing you with Broadband. Therefore are in violation of the contract you have with them about them providing you with Broadband for money.
So if they do make the Broadband uselessly slow with a multi tier system.. every person being screwed can cost them up to a half million a piece. One hundred people means up to 50 million in fines. 1000 is up to 500 million.
So just for the sake of argument what specifically do you want added to the bill by your congress person? If you state anything that sounds like Infernos idea of what should happen to corporations I shall be forced call the nice young men in the clean white coats on you.
Astynax
04-28-2006, 08:50 AM
Maybe you've not been paying attention. What with all of the attempts (DRM, rootkits, lawsuits) and laws (DMCA, the pending COPEA,) it has been shown that J. Random Consumer will lube up and bend over for most anything, so long as it is done in little steps. Will the corporation go scorched Earth from day 1? No, day 1 will be much like day -1, and day 2 much like day 1, but day 600? That will be a different story. They can, and possibly will, roll it out slowly, such that very few people will notice the difference until it is too late. Also, the free market only works where there are alternatives. AOL can't charge per email because there are many, many alternatives to AOL. But broadband is a much less competative space, and if all the Telecomms companies smell the same blood in the water, the only choice will be the crippled connection or none at all (it isn't as if an upstart competitor can lay down miles of cable, even if it had the money there are mountains of beaurocracy involved, which is why wired comms is usually a 'natural' monopoly situation.)
And you say it is paranoid conjecture. Conjecture I'll grant you, but honestly, why give the corpoerations the opportunity? Corporations are not people, they have no rights, only statutory privileges we (well, our government) decides to grant them. Why grant them this one?
-={(Astynax)}=-
And you say it is paranoid conjecture. Conjecture I'll grant you, but honestly, why give the corpoerations the opportunity? Corporations are not people, they have no rights, only statutory privileges we (well, our government) decides to grant them. Why grant them this one?
-={(Astynax)}=-
04-28-2006, 02:20 PM
Well Necratoid, the name calling did start when you referred to me as deluded and inevitably escalated from there. Your trying to gain any sort of moral high ground on the issue is therefore rather limited. Change the batteries. Breathe in. Breathe out. You might also check your posts on Iran in which you caution someone to speak from orifices located about their neck; Im afraid that your moral high ground is just slightly below the proverbial snakes ass in a wagon rut.
(It is also not nice to mention the men in the white coats too loudly; especially when you have recently let loose such zingers as communists controlling the environmental movement, the French Revolution being caused by the failure to adopt the potato and the UN supporting bestiality. The men in the white coats love it when people talk like that, it makes their jobs so much easier.)
For your information I do not possess a totalitarian internet business plan, mine is more egalitarian (Its a joke son.. get it.) What I also have is observation of existing phenomenon. When you have a credit card company writing legislation about credit-card debt, they are naturally going to proceed in a certain direction. Likewise if you are a drug company writing legislation on a drug plan, it is going to be favorable to your own interest. If you ask a chicken how it wants to be stuffed, it is going to go on about grubs, worms and corn, not Stovetop instant stuffing; or my favorite, an injected Cajun spice and a can of root beer. This is not a grass roots legislation; it is being bought and paid for by the broadband providers for their benefit.
You are indeed correct that the bill is in its early stages. The stages where action can be taken against it. As opposed to when it stumbles past the Presidents desk. Tell me, do you wait until the bumper is at your knees before you get out of the way of the onrushing car?
Is it a threat? To take your rather nerd-centric analogy full circle, this is indeed a first level character being advertised as a epic warlord, but it is a first level character that is being twinked by some very rich and very influential high level characters. So there is a very real reason to be concerned. It was not misrepresented to you; you just didnt read it through the first time; or consider the implications.
The requirement of child pornography is interesting; not for what it says, but for what it implies. It forces companies not to allow child porn on the internet pipes they provide. What does that mean? It means that all traffic flowing has to be monitored; in order to ensure that no child porn is present. That includes all e-mail message, all forum traffic, all browsing, all downloads. In other words, your right to privacy is being bent over a barrel and taken roughly without even the common courtesy of a reach-around. As I have previously noted once you control the traffic, you are responsible for the content.
What is even worse is that this is not going to make that big a difference in stopping child pornography. In order to bust someone you have to be able put their backside in the chair in front of the computer at the time of the incident. There are better ways; that do not infringe on the privacy of everyone on the internet.
Now your last point about making the average download of 1mb every 5 seconds. There is a caveat to that. The content must be capable of being downloaded at that speed. If the provider can prove that you can get the speed they contracted for (lets say from their own supported music download service); then their obligation in regard to your speed is met; even if you cannot get that speed from the service you wish to use.
(It is also not nice to mention the men in the white coats too loudly; especially when you have recently let loose such zingers as communists controlling the environmental movement, the French Revolution being caused by the failure to adopt the potato and the UN supporting bestiality. The men in the white coats love it when people talk like that, it makes their jobs so much easier.)
For your information I do not possess a totalitarian internet business plan, mine is more egalitarian (Its a joke son.. get it.) What I also have is observation of existing phenomenon. When you have a credit card company writing legislation about credit-card debt, they are naturally going to proceed in a certain direction. Likewise if you are a drug company writing legislation on a drug plan, it is going to be favorable to your own interest. If you ask a chicken how it wants to be stuffed, it is going to go on about grubs, worms and corn, not Stovetop instant stuffing; or my favorite, an injected Cajun spice and a can of root beer. This is not a grass roots legislation; it is being bought and paid for by the broadband providers for their benefit.
You are indeed correct that the bill is in its early stages. The stages where action can be taken against it. As opposed to when it stumbles past the Presidents desk. Tell me, do you wait until the bumper is at your knees before you get out of the way of the onrushing car?
Is it a threat? To take your rather nerd-centric analogy full circle, this is indeed a first level character being advertised as a epic warlord, but it is a first level character that is being twinked by some very rich and very influential high level characters. So there is a very real reason to be concerned. It was not misrepresented to you; you just didnt read it through the first time; or consider the implications.
The requirement of child pornography is interesting; not for what it says, but for what it implies. It forces companies not to allow child porn on the internet pipes they provide. What does that mean? It means that all traffic flowing has to be monitored; in order to ensure that no child porn is present. That includes all e-mail message, all forum traffic, all browsing, all downloads. In other words, your right to privacy is being bent over a barrel and taken roughly without even the common courtesy of a reach-around. As I have previously noted once you control the traffic, you are responsible for the content.
What is even worse is that this is not going to make that big a difference in stopping child pornography. In order to bust someone you have to be able put their backside in the chair in front of the computer at the time of the incident. There are better ways; that do not infringe on the privacy of everyone on the internet.
Now your last point about making the average download of 1mb every 5 seconds. There is a caveat to that. The content must be capable of being downloaded at that speed. If the provider can prove that you can get the speed they contracted for (lets say from their own supported music download service); then their obligation in regard to your speed is met; even if you cannot get that speed from the service you wish to use.
04-28-2006, 08:39 PM
The telecom companies want a piece of the Google pie, because they feel they deserve more than, say, the insane amounts Google pays for bandwidth? What happens when Verizon decides that they deserve a piece of some business deals concluded over their phone lines? Or when Delta decides that they deserve a piece of something because it was signed by people travelling on Delta Airlines?
This is the potential - ridiculous, yes! - that they are opening up. But I think that politicians only recognize the ludicrous extreme.
Pointing out that this means they may get smaller contributions - or opposition - from other large businesses may be a way to stop this.
Interestingly, an emergency session of the Senate Special Committee on Telecommunications - which is specifically aimed at the Internet - was called for today. This is the group that, the joke goes, are paid for by tech companies as opposed to telecom companies.Brazil has decided you're cute.Brazil has decided you're cute.
This is the potential - ridiculous, yes! - that they are opening up. But I think that politicians only recognize the ludicrous extreme.
Pointing out that this means they may get smaller contributions - or opposition - from other large businesses may be a way to stop this.
Interestingly, an emergency session of the Senate Special Committee on Telecommunications - which is specifically aimed at the Internet - was called for today. This is the group that, the joke goes, are paid for by tech companies as opposed to telecom companies.Brazil has decided you're cute.Brazil has decided you're cute.
04-28-2006, 11:04 PM
This is all very nice, but it'll go nowhere.
Look, plain and simple - AT&T goes to Google and says 'give us more money or we'll drop your packets,' Goggle tells them to piss off, and puts up a nice little web page saying "AT&T Customers, you're having trouble because AT&T is trying to fleece us for more money."
AT&T Customers bitch at AT&T and/or leave the company to an alternate ISP. Guy who proposed the entire things gets fired for costing the company millions and giving them bad press. AT&T relents, and everything goes back to normal.
How about al alternate example? Say some Amazon-competitior (call them Spartan) turns around and makes a deal with Roadrunner to get 'preferential' access to the Roadrunner network. So anyone going to Spartan.com gets faster response than Amazon.com.
Does anything change? NO. Those customers are still going to Amazon, because they're the better company.
Seriously, I think you're all making mountains out of molehills here. --
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
![[Image: Con.gif]](http://www.yggdrasil.org/misc/Con.gif)
Look, plain and simple - AT&T goes to Google and says 'give us more money or we'll drop your packets,' Goggle tells them to piss off, and puts up a nice little web page saying "AT&T Customers, you're having trouble because AT&T is trying to fleece us for more money."
AT&T Customers bitch at AT&T and/or leave the company to an alternate ISP. Guy who proposed the entire things gets fired for costing the company millions and giving them bad press. AT&T relents, and everything goes back to normal.
How about al alternate example? Say some Amazon-competitior (call them Spartan) turns around and makes a deal with Roadrunner to get 'preferential' access to the Roadrunner network. So anyone going to Spartan.com gets faster response than Amazon.com.
Does anything change? NO. Those customers are still going to Amazon, because they're the better company.
Seriously, I think you're all making mountains out of molehills here. --
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
04-28-2006, 11:25 PM
Quote:I certainly hope so.
Seriously, I think you're all making mountains out of molehills here.
The thing is, though, that there's absolutely no reason to take the chance. Allowing this... thing to go forward does us, the taxpayers, absolutely no good that I can see.
Nor, for that matter, have I heard anyone else suggest any benefit.
Ja, -n
===============================================
"Puripuri puripuri... Bang!"
Necratoid
04-29-2006, 12:44 AM
Quote:Good, Good. I already have you guys down as not wanting to let corporations scrap the internet. You have all made the abundantly clear, repeatedly. However your missing something very important I have said:
Conjecture I'll grant you, but honestly, why give the corpoerations the opportunity?
Quote:So... Besides angsting over the social doomsday... and declaring Coca-Cola imaginary. The company has managed to exist for over a century, under the only business models that you guys have stated corporations this is impossible. I see a lot of credit given to people that who illegally scrap businesses... and absolutely none to the ones that build them up in the first place.
So just for the sake of argument what specifically do you want added to the bill by your congress person?
Again... What can be added to the bill? What can be done to avert the social apocalypse? Can you tell me this? Do you even have an idea yourself? Please... do something useful. Tell me a solution and not give me a list of complaints and woes. If you are unable to do so... I will have to declare you insane under the following definition:
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
So far I've got lots people channeling Inferno and not actually able to come up with a counter proposal for the bill in question. By channeling Inferno I mean that your point is that of of Inferno. Inferno being the fire ant predicon from Beast Wars. He considered Megratron his queen. His credo is: 'BURN!!! BURN!!! FOR THE COLONY!!!' This involved liberal and frequent use of his flame-thrower.
Please... if you wish to discus my view that the environmentalist movement in America is controlled by Communist party leftovers... please keep it in the thread on if Iran is a threat that is now about how America is causing global warming. Because these are so not the same topic and one thread has already been co-opted to this purpose.
Once again how would you alter the bill in question given a choice?
Quote:That could be their defense perhaps. However it would be a comically tragic one. The company in question would have to insist that either the Internet consists of only that one website in total or that the person in question only visits that one website in total. If it only one website is effected the website in question needs new servers or is very, very busy. Which is not the Internet companies problem to solve, thus a frivolous lawsuit. Barring the prosecution being stupid or greed and the defense being harassed, any judge that rules for that corporate malarkey of a craptastical defense is one of two things bribed and very, very bad at hiding his/her case of chemically induced brain damage.
then their obligation in regard to your speed is met; even if you cannot get that speed from the service you wish to use.
On a more personal note I called you deluded (deluding yourself, believing things that are true only in that you want the to be), because you insisted that dial-up is not just a slower internet connection than cable. Specifically referencing one thing. You responded by challenging total general level of intelligence, my bladder control and get increasingly hostile.
Im not challenging you to an insult contest here. Im just saying that you need to reread your posts, before posting them in order see if your just starting a fight or escalating one, instead of addressing the issue at hand. As it is I often feel your going to try and bite my fingers off if I get too close. This is a stylistic comment not a challenge to a fight.
LantisEscudo
04-29-2006, 01:56 AM
Quote:I want language stating that a carrier (Verizon, Comcast, whoever) cannot deliberately reduce the available bandwith for a service in favor of forcing users to use the carrier's own similar service.
Again... What can be added to the bill? What can be done to avert the social apocalypse? Can you tell me this? Do you even have an idea yourself? Please... do something useful. Tell me a solution and not give me a list of complaints and woes.
Promote your own service all you want, just don't degrade the others. It's like, say, Sprint deliberately downgrading the audio quality of calls from other cellular customers: if they want to talk to you at full quality, they have to use a Sprint phone. It's artificially hindering communications in favor of gaining customers.
Unfortunately, the language I want has already been shot down in the House Energy and Commerce committee.
Quote:I hope so, too, but I've seen similar actions on a smaller scale already (Management forcing tech guys to limit the bandwith to or entirely block an online service in favor of a far inferior in-house application). When it's the big guns of telecom involved, I get worried.------------
Seriously, I think you're all making mountains out of molehills here.
Honou Productions
------------
Honou Productions.
Necratoid
05-01-2006, 12:06 AM
Quote:Probably because that language can be used to set up legions of parasite companies. What I mean is that I can go make a company that sits on the internet without adding any substantial resources, and make money by charging people to use their services, on the budget of the consumer and the telecoms.
Unfortunately, the language I want has already been shot down in the House Energy and Commerce committee.
With that language I can literally make a program allows a person to sell their own internet phone service... and never buy any equipment to speak of. Sure a few computers... but no lines or anything. Your now dealing with hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of microproviders that sell you a phone service over the internet. They only have to the buy bandwidth.
Basically the theoretical program is one that uses the microproviders miniservice to piggy back on the big telecoms internet phone service. This means that the one internet phone they have is used as a jump point for their own microservice unlimited calls you see. This one big telecom internet phone line is providing 15-30 people with internet phone for a third of the price everything past the first 3 people is profit. Business costs are dumped on the big telecoms. So their internet phone costs go up. So the big telecoms raise the phone fees or another fee or just soak it. If the price goes up the microprovider raises his own fees a bit or keeps them the same and adds more people. The problem is always the fault of the big telecom and the little guy causing the problem is the solution.
Granted this is all theoretical and the details of exactly how a bit sketchy, but under your language I or you could do this with large numbers of other people legally. Thats the problem with legalese one slip up and you leave a loophole. Even a small loophole used correctly can have major consequences. This is what came to me in 5 minutes. Imagine the damage with people better at weaseling then me on this loophole.
Thanks for actually providing an answer though.
Pages: 1 2