PDA

View Full Version : What are you doing about "Net Neutrality"?


infinitymurph
06-08-2006, 05:26 PM
There is a vote coming in Congress here in the US about a bill called "The COPE Act". If this bill passes, it could devistate, and even eliminate every small business on the 'net. Including every indy publisher out there...and they're going to vote on it VERY SOON. As soon as next week.

Here is a link to the washington post that should spread a little more light on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html

Here is a link to where you can find your Congress representative's contact information:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Get the phone number to their office, and tell them what you think about this bill. It will take you less than 5 minutes to make that call and express your feelings on this issue. Phone calls are a lot more effective than filling out a form letter and having it be mass emailed to your Congress person.

Every voice counts in this, so please take a few minutes out of your day, and give them a call.

MrGranger
06-08-2006, 06:07 PM
Corporate brains at work again.

Lovecraft13
06-08-2006, 06:26 PM
What am I gonna go do about "Net Neutrality"?

Dance, sucka! Dance! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixsZy2425eY)

Scribe
06-08-2006, 07:11 PM
I wonder how this will effect the most popular thing on the web... porn

jimmycakes
06-08-2006, 10:42 PM
I wonder how this will effect the most popular thing on the web... porn


Well... there's BIG OIL right? I'm sure they'll figure out a way to keep BIG.... well you know. Tax it!

Scott Story
06-08-2006, 11:18 PM
Maybe we are living in a dream world, but if the internet gets swallowed up, there go webcomics, comic sites, etc. etc. I was in college the second time before I heard of email, so if I survived without the net then, I guess I can do it again.

scottr
06-09-2006, 02:25 PM
This is a very real threat to all webcomic publishers. We should all be very very concerned, and do something about it. I'm going to get some banners in place on my site and write something to my subscribers when I send out next week's comic. Thanks for posting this info.

D.J. Coffman
06-09-2006, 06:56 PM
Either way, webcomics will survive...

There's no way the senate will let it go through, they'll lock it all up. I mean, if you know your politics and all that-- Remember, there's money and big business on both sides.. Google's CEO just emailed all the adsense publishers a special message about this and they're fighting for the public--- I bet they have some deep pockets to stop this from going anywhere.....

Nobody panic. The internet is safe....

FA
06-09-2006, 08:44 PM
Nobody panic. The internet is safe....

"Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"

scottr
06-09-2006, 09:09 PM
Either way, webcomics will survive...

There's no way the senate will let it go through, they'll lock it all up. I mean, if you know your politics and all that-- Remember, there's money and big business on both sides.. Google's CEO just emailed all the adsense publishers a special message about this and they're fighting for the public--- I bet they have some deep pockets to stop this from going anywhere.....

Nobody panic. The internet is safe....


Google to the rescue!

KuzuD
06-09-2006, 10:27 PM
If this DID pass, I wonder how long it would be until an alternative means of (free) surfing took its place? Look how well legislation's wiped out P2P :yawn:

infinitymurph
06-10-2006, 12:57 AM
Either way, webcomics will survive...

There's no way the senate will let it go through, they'll lock it all up. I mean, if you know your politics and all that-- Remember, there's money and big business on both sides.. Google's CEO just emailed all the adsense publishers a special message about this and they're fighting for the public--- I bet they have some deep pockets to stop this from going anywhere.....

Nobody panic. The internet is safe....

Nobody panic huh?

Well the House of Representatives are firmly against the concept of Net Neutrality, and voted for this damn thing last night.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588-6081882.html

The House is already passed the COPE Act, which would make all this crap legal if Congress agrees.

Now, I'm not a real political guy, so I hope I'm not getting any of this wrong, but, as I understand it, Congress is out last line of defense on this thing.

D.J. Coffman
06-10-2006, 02:05 AM
No, you're panicking dude.. TONS... TONS of things pass in the House and then don't go through the Senate.

j giar
06-10-2006, 10:17 AM
No, you're panicking dude.. TONS... TONS of things pass in the House and then don't go through the Senate.
Yeah, come on man don't you remember School House Rock. I keep telling myself there is no F'n way this would pass. It would halt any and all economic internet growth in it's tracks. But that little voice in my head (one of many) keeps whispering that stranger things have happened. Music rating system, comics code, David Hasselhoff a recording star!

infinitymurph
06-10-2006, 10:47 AM
No, you're panicking dude.. TONS... TONS of things pass in the House and then don't go through the Senate.

I'm not panicking. This thing was voted almost completely down party lines...just like almost everything else that's been voted on for the past 6 years.

There is no reason to think this will be any different.

Scott Story
06-10-2006, 12:30 PM
The thing that is most amazing to me is that if this passes, think of the damage or suppressing effect this will have on the economy. This is a great example of putting short term gains over long term gains, if it passes. I'm also amazed this hasn't gotten more coverage in the media--I listen to NPR most of the day, I have never heard about this.

Let's look at the upside. With no internet, we can get back to using the postal system. If you need information, you can invest in encyclopedias. You can spend your gas money to drive to all the brick & morter outlets for your goods.

Buckyrig
06-10-2006, 12:37 PM
I'm not panicking. This thing was voted almost completely down party lines...just like almost everything else that's been voted on for the past 6 years.

There is no reason to think this will be any different.

Wow...would be funny if this happened and then it got media attention. Probably guarantee the Republicans lose the House come fall...and Democratic leaders have implied they will impeach if they take control.

j giar
06-10-2006, 01:01 PM
I had actually recieved an e-mail, ironically, regarding this about 2 or 3 weeks ago. I immediately registered with http://www.savetheinternet.com/ to voice my opinion. This whole thing pisses me off in so many ways. It's one more step by the republicans to pilfer my rights,to piss all over freedom of speech and to line their pockets with my slowly dwindling cash. I'm not panicked! But I am most definitely, f*#kin fume'n!!! Good times....good times!

scottr
06-10-2006, 01:29 PM
I don't think anyone here is 'panicking'. But I do think it's an important law that could have enormously negative impact on those of us publishing webcomics. It would probably spell the end of the Internet as we know it, and from what I've learned so far, would probably turn it into an online equivalent of big money cable tv stations.

The panicking will begin if that law passes.

Scott Story
06-10-2006, 01:59 PM
I had actually recieved an e-mail, ironically, regarding this about 2 or 3 weeks ago. I immediately registered with http://www.savetheinternet.com/ to voice my opinion. This whole thing pisses me off in so many ways. It's one more step by the republicans to pilfer my rights,to piss all over freedom of speech and to line their pockets with my slowly dwindling cash. I'm not panicked! But I am most definitely, f*#kin fume'n!!! Good times....good times!

Well, we see pretty much eye to eye on this. The thing that gets me is that people have become such sheep, and there has been no uprising or huge protest about little things like government spying on us, or torturing prisoners, or holding citizens without placing charges against them, etc. etc. I just can't believe all this is happening, and it seems no one cares. So, ruining the neutrality of the internet is just one more way to suppress free speech and the disemination of information.

I don't think anyone here is 'panicking'. But I do think it's an important law that could have enormously negative impact on those of us publishing webcomics. It would probably spell the end of the Internet as we know it, and from what I've learned so far, would probably turn it into an online equivalent of big money cable tv stations.

No panic here. In fact, there never was a guarantee that this form of communication would be forever, or that it's current form was somehow unchangeable. But, as someone who relies on the internet to run my personal business, and uses the internet for the majority of my interractions with others, it is a matter of concern.

j giar
06-10-2006, 02:19 PM
I agree Scott. It's just one of many ways our government has seeped into our personal, individual lives undetected. No, the public would much rather get all in an uproar over some yutz being voted off American Idol. Or be concerned over the birth of Cruises or Angelina's kid. Not to sound "Lone Gunmenish" but I swear to god, I wonder if the media sometimes does shit like that just to keep the sheep occupied. Like a magician slight of hand.
All debates aside, I now feel more strongly that the web, the internet and webcomics are essential to the success of any independent artist..no matter if you're talking publishing, music..you name it.

Poboy
06-10-2006, 02:50 PM
Not to sound "Lone Gunmenish" but I swear to god, I wonder if the media sometimes does shit like that just to keep the sheep occupied. Like a magician slight of hand.
I don't think it's lone gunmanish. The media's interest is not to inform the public. In the news, they haven't been interested in that since the 70's. And if you've ever seen news footage from Vietnam, I don't need to tell you how different it is from the 'embedded' reporters.

scottr
06-10-2006, 03:14 PM
Well, this is getting off-topic but I don't care. As for media, the bottom line is that they report only the news that gets the most ratings. That's always been the way of it, and it always will. It has less to do with politics and more to do with money. The problem beyond the obvious is that important news that actually affects our lives as individuals rarely gets much spotlight. It's the big glitzy scandals and bizarre celebrity antics that garner most of the media focus, and that's ultimately our fault for deciding such things are important. I think this Net Nuetrality issue is a perfect example of that. There, I brought it back on-topic.

D.J. Coffman
06-10-2006, 03:22 PM
I think some of the panicking is coming from people thinking the internet would be all chopped up. I've heard the primary reason they're trying to put this through is because the phone companies are pissed that they spent their own money to put these broadband phone lines in, and now companies who use VOIP phone services are using THEIR lines to offer phone service through their lines. As I've heard it, thats how this whole thing came about. They want to charge places like VONAGE and othe VOIP services to use their broadband lines. Phone companies won't limit what you can or can't see on the internet, because many of them, ATnT and Verizon are offering broadband services already, and it would HURT them extremely with many people changing providers. It's one reason AOL had to change their whole setup -- (remember when they only let you see through their browser? hell, maybe they still do.)

So, I can see the point of the phone companies. It would suck if you built something, and then someone else is using your system to undercut you in their primary business, phones. And if the phone companies tried to hurt the consumers, I have a feeling they'd feel it fast and furious.

Scott Story
06-10-2006, 03:36 PM
DJ's my guru, so I listen to what he says.

While my frustration with the government, and my disappointment with the people's apathy, are real, I do have to admit that I don't know how this would actually shake out if it passed and the pres. signed it. I do think it would be bad, and I do think it would weed out a lot of people who don't have capital to pay the tolls, so to speak, but I also don't think it will be the alarmist scenario either. Yes, I mentioned the "end of the internet" in earlier posts, but I doubt that it will go that far--too much of big business has too much money at stake for that.

The United States has a service based economy, and is well into transforming into an information based economy. Both models lean heavily on the internet, and if the net gets turned into cable tv jr. then a substantial part of those economies will not get served.

Upon reading savetheinternet.com, I think 80% of it's predictions are likely to come true to some extent, and 20% are stated in vague, uknowable language. That's their right, of course, to put it how they want to, because they are proponants for an issue. It's just up to us as consumers to listen and choose carefully.

That having been said, if this bill passes the senate, then things will be bleak for the little guy. It just particularly irks me, because indy comics has already lost the war in terms of ink n' paper, direct market distribution, so losing our web publishing/distribution seems like a particularly cruel insult.

j giar
06-10-2006, 03:58 PM
DJ's my guru, so I listen to what he says.

While my frustration with the government, and my disappointment with the people's apathy, are real, I do have to admit that I don't know how this would actually shake out if it passed and the pres. signed it. I do think it would be bad, and I do think it would weed out a lot of people who don't have capital to pay the tolls, so to speak, but I also don't think it will be the alarmist scenario either. Yes, I mentioned the "end of the internet" in earlier posts, but I doubt that it will go that far--too much of big business has too much money at stake for that.

The United States has a service based economy, and is well into transforming into an information based economy. Both models lean heavily on the internet, and if the net gets turned into cable tv jr. then a substantial part of those economies will not get served.

Upon reading savetheinternet.com, I think 80% of it's predictions are likely to come true to some extent, and 20% are stated in vague, uknowable language. That's their right, of course, to put it how they want to, because they are proponants for an issue. It's just up to us as consumers to listen and choose carefully.

That having been said, if this bill passes the senate, then things will be bleak for the little guy. It just particularly irks me, because indy comics has already lost the war in terms of ink n' paper, direct market distribution, so losing our web publishing/distribution seems like a particularly cruel insult.
I really don't feel any sympathy for one single utility company. Call me paranoid but after all the bullshit with the petroleum companies and record breaking profits at my and our expense...they can all piss up a rope. Yeah, it isn't right that someone else gets to benefit from all their work...guess they should have protected themselves better on the front end of that deal. Not my problem. Scott I agree with you in the respect that losing our web presense would be disasterous..not just a cruel insult. It could literally be one of many nails in the coffin. As I said in an earlier post I'm not panicing..I'm just pissed! If there is one person to listen to on here when it comes to web comics...it's D.J. If he's not concerned...well I'm still leary and pissed but I'll put my trust in him before I will anyone else.

theflash
06-10-2006, 04:42 PM
i have little sympathy for the corporations myself. i work for big oil indirectly, and i can tell you with absolute certainty that they only used the hurricanes as an excuse to jack your gas prices. it doesn't cost them any more to get it now than it did two years ago, but they will squeeze you if they can, so they do.

same with phone and cable people. they have had their tired infrastructure in place for decades getting fat off of so called "service charges" and basically got caught with their pants down when the call came for better lines and new technology. so now they want to cry foul because someone offers up some competition in the form of the internet and VOIP. i hope the same thing happens to them as happened to the music industry and they get kicked in the ass.

JamieRoberts
06-10-2006, 05:05 PM
I'm a UK citizen. If I set up a business online, what the hell business is it of a government of another country to tell me things are going to change? I'm not slighting the US here, I hope you understand, just the fact that any decision made by congress should affect me in any way. I realise the net is a global community, but if so, shouldn't every country with internet access get a say in this shite policy?

Calloway
06-10-2006, 05:13 PM
don't panic. Google to the rescue! Let's forget about the bigger corporations like microsoft who would make a killing at killing small buisness. If you live in a small town then you know what I mean when the wal mart virus infects and small mom and pops disappear. There's another company I'm sure is rooting for it...wal mart.

Poboy
06-10-2006, 05:55 PM
The phone companies have already been paid for using the lines. The best part of this whole thing is that we, as subscribers to an ISP, have paid for the use of the lines.


I'm a UK citizen. If I set up a business online, what the hell business is it of a government of another country to tell me things are going to change? I'm not slighting the US here, I hope you understand, just the fact that any decision made by congress should affect me in any way. I realise the net is a global community, but if so, shouldn't every country with internet access get a say in this shite policy?
You (or your country) could take it up with the WTO. Then we could ignore you like the internet gambling industry which under the WTO rules should be allowed in this country.
Every country has the right to make stupid rules, as we Americans have been demonstrating for a while now. I don't think you'd like it if Americans had a say in English law anymore than Americans would like it if the English had a say in American law.

innocentboy
06-10-2006, 07:13 PM
serious ... SAVE NET NEUTRALITY!!!!!!!

Calloway
06-10-2006, 07:31 PM
Eh, I'd just get a wireless bridge set up from canada.

Calloway
06-11-2006, 12:53 AM
I guess this is getting pretty serious


Here's alot of useful edumacation and info on what's going on...

Net nutered (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=17895)

Icaruss
06-11-2006, 01:35 AM
I don't see how exactly is this law going to pass. How many congressmen would want slow loading internet pages?

innocentboy
06-11-2006, 01:40 AM
how many congressmen would want coporate "donations" if it meant slower internet pages?

ShanE
06-11-2006, 02:18 AM
But everyone has thier finger in the Ebay pie and online buisenesses alike including congressmen, and thier kids, and thier cousins, relatives etc....
Would they really pass something so important to live with the ridiculke from thier own aspiring online buisness family and friends?

D.J. Coffman
06-11-2006, 02:45 AM
Yeah, the trickle UP to the Senators, you'd be surprised at how much they DO know small business. Many of them came right out of small businesses of small family owned businesses to know how this would hurt the little guy.

I really don't think those online forms to spam senators / congressman work, heck, they don't even read them anyway. Hopefully common sense will prevail with this.

People would just not use the internet if it were all locked up. Then everyone loses. Especially the politicians when the next vote rolls around.

innocentboy
06-11-2006, 02:51 AM
i don't know ... sounds shiesty to me.

eBay and simular big companies can afford not having net neutrality where as smaller auction sites might not be able too ...

and politicians know that they can afford to be politician #2 ...

Buckyrig
06-11-2006, 11:55 AM
I really don't think those online forms to spam senators / congressman work, heck, they don't even read them anyway. Hopefully common sense will prevail with this.

Probably not...signatures with full names and addresses that can be matched against voter registration records...that gets attention. They don't care about constituents, they care about voters.

chaosgoat
06-11-2006, 12:42 PM
The Internet is a world-wide network, so the United States government can't really put regulation on it.

And even if they ignore that, the Republicans (who are the realy threat to net neutrality) are relianant on small-town America. They need the backing of the independent business-owner. Rejecting Net-neutrality would piss of their voters, because they'd be doing exactly opposite of what they say they want to do: they'd be raising taxes.

Besides, I'm pretty sure this violates the 1st Amendment, so it shouldn't pass the Supreme Court anyway.

Calloway
06-11-2006, 01:02 PM
The world wide net is world wide yes, BUT The isps in this country are USA and can control data flow. Corporations needs not have anything to fear I guess. They used google as an example in the video. Google is small buisness because (last I knew) it was still independantly owned. The reprucussions to this is possible net downsizing and less people wanting to get on. It sounds like it's all still in motion. As said before it doesn't matter how much congress knows about small buisness, the lobbyist control congress not the people. Future votes or not (Strom Thurman comes to mind). Online petitions I've always felt were ridiculus. Snail mail is better, make em notice. Or better yet call your congressman and see what the dilly yo.

ShanE
06-11-2006, 03:31 PM
I've also heard that faxing directly takes notice, it fills up thier inboxes quickly and they have to physicaly handle them immediatley. Unlike emails or even mail (which sits until someone has the letter opener to sit and open it all), faxes create instant office clutter which has to be handled asap.
I know it did in the office I used to work for years ago.

chaosgoat
06-11-2006, 04:54 PM
We could always follow the example those Wall-on-the-border advocates and flood their offices with AOL trial disks.

j giar
06-11-2006, 05:19 PM
We could always follow the example those Wall-on-the-border advocates and flood their offices with AOL trial disks.
:laugh:

Scribe
06-11-2006, 06:35 PM
I really don't think those online forms to spam senators / congressman work, heck, they don't even read them anyway. Hopefully common sense will prevail with this.

I don't think the form letters help either, but I do know that the congressional staff for each office does track email, mail and phone calls by issue, so if if they get 10,000 email from constitutates for net neutrality and only 2,000 against it they can get an image of what their district looks like.

Also every piece of mail sent to a congressional office gets opened and read, there are people in each office who do that as their full time job (Typically an intern but still)

I would say write your congressmen first and then your senator, since the congressional district is smaller than the whole state. I really do believe letter writing makes a difference, more so on the state level, but still some on the federal level.

chaosgoat
06-11-2006, 09:44 PM
No one reads the snail mail, either. They scan the letters for the issue, then toss them in a pile to get a form reply. I wrote Kentucky Representative Ken Lucas about gay rights (I'm pro), and I get a from letter back saying how happy he is that I support his anti-Gay rights agenda. The congressmen are going to listen to lobbyists before they read a bunch of letters from Joe and Susie Nobody. It takes big moves to actually get these guys to sit up and listen.

scottr
06-12-2006, 08:17 AM
Let me guess. None of you guys vote either.

Angel
06-12-2006, 09:52 AM
"Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"

Gah! Fucking Americans! :w00t:

chaosgoat
06-12-2006, 10:20 AM
Let me guess. None of you guys vote either.

Hey, if I was old enough, you know I'd be there.

Buckyrig
06-12-2006, 11:40 AM
Let me guess. None of you guys vote either.

Actually, your power to petition is often more effective than voting...however your vote (when you have, not for whom) is record and can be checked...so it helps to be a voter to back up your claims of support for or against a politician.

Scott Story
06-15-2006, 11:07 AM
I vote. It's frustrating, but I do indeed vote. All of you who are old enough should vote too. It's not the only way to help push for change, but it's still a valid (outside of Ohio and Florida) way.

Calloway
06-15-2006, 02:24 PM
naw. It's still a screwed up system. Twice a man who lost out the popular vote became president. The whole system is screwed up. Your vote doesn't count for a hill of beans unless it's at the local level.

Buckyrig
06-15-2006, 03:47 PM
naw. It's still a screwed up system. Twice a man who lost out the popular vote became president.

The Electoral system prevents low voter turnout in a state or area of the country from screwing that whole area over. By popular vote alone, it would almost be just a three way tug of war between what people in NY, CA, and TX want while the rest of the country can go to hell.

This is all in theory of course. :)

Scott Story
06-15-2006, 04:09 PM
naw. It's still a screwed up system. Twice a man who lost out the popular vote became president. The whole system is screwed up. Your vote doesn't count for a hill of beans unless it's at the local level.

Not true.

If you vote, you have the right to voice your opinion about the system and it's leaders: You made your voice heard. If you don't vote, then you've got no real right to complain.

I suppose the only other people who have a right to complain are those who served the country in the military, served as an elected public official, or took up arms as a revolutionary. If you are not one of those, you should at least vote and participate in the democracy. If you don't even vote, you have made yourself voiceless.

Proceed to agree, disagree, or ignore.

j giar
06-15-2006, 04:09 PM
Especially when you have places like Florida and us here in Ohio that can't seem to get our shit together when it comes to counting votes.

bluelinesmoke
06-15-2006, 11:36 PM
Not to mention places like Colorado, which voted Republican and esentially nixed my vote. If there were a simple popular vote, then at least my vote would be counted toward the final verdict. The electoral College was created in a time when a popular vote was infeasable. It would have taked months to gather the votes and count them. Now, with electronic voting, there is no reason to use this outdated system.

down21
06-16-2006, 11:44 AM
Especially when you have places like Florida and us here in Ohio that can't seem to get our shit together when it comes to counting votes.

I'm with you but also would hate to see this thread turn into part B of the Coulter thread since its been pretty bipartisan up to now.

I signed the petition even though I know it doesn't mean much.
AF? is right cut out the middle man it's just a fight between the lobbyists/corporations.
When it was Porn V the XXX domain guy, the money won (Thank goodness imo). Now its Ebay/Google V telecom guys and I'm just wondering who has the most money?
I don't believe for a sec that the politicians give a rat's butt about my signing a petition.
If it weren't for DJ's opinion I'd say we were scr****. Now I have to go back and read again WHY he thinks we're not.
But I signed it for the same reason I vote. You have to do what you can.

Calloway
06-16-2006, 02:32 PM
Not true.

If you vote, you have the right to voice your opinion about the system and it's leaders: You made your voice heard. If you don't vote, then you've got no real right to complain.

I suppose the only other people who have a right to complain are those who served the country in the military, served as an elected public official, or took up arms as a revolutionary. If you are not one of those, you should at least vote and participate in the democracy. If you don't even vote, you have made yourself voiceless.

Proceed to agree, disagree, or ignore.

You know, florida has already shown the system to be flawed big time. Also a statement like this pisses me off. As an american I have the right to vote or not vote based on my opinion of the system. I have as much right as a military man to complain.

Buckyrig
06-16-2006, 02:36 PM
There is a "none" option on the ballot however. You can actually go and register your non-vote. Would carry more weight I think. If they saw that something like 5% or whatever of voters were pissed enough to go to the polls to vote for no one, it might send a bigger message than "I was watching cartoons."

Calloway
06-16-2006, 02:40 PM
I think that's more to keep track of people. Like I said, the local system works fine. Well at least around here. They need to fix and check the federal system. It has way too many flaws and is not hard to "fix" as it were. Remember when all those dogs and dead people voted? yeah.

Scott Story
06-16-2006, 03:00 PM
No system is perfect.

If you don't participate, then you've wasted your influence.

It's about as useful to not-vote and go on about how useless the system is as have a strong opinion about a book you didn't even bother to read.

Apathy, and apathetic people, is why the system got out of hand in the first place. The election was stolen twice by the pretender in the white house because of the apathetic populace.

So, yeah, complain a lot about how broken the system is, and then stay away and don't engage. That'll fix things up. :yawn:

Calloway
06-17-2006, 12:28 AM
I wish I were as naive as you.

sneed
06-17-2006, 10:15 PM
I've done some editorial illos on the subject for a couple of mags. . . . ( nothing spectacular )

. . . . for FREE!!!!!

sneed

:)

scottr
06-19-2006, 10:58 AM
I wish I were as naive as you.


Actually he hit the nail perfectly. No vote, no voice. It's that simple. If you turn away from the system entirely then you have no chance to change it.

Scott Story
06-19-2006, 08:19 PM
I wish I were as naive as you.

LGM, you officially amaze me. I hope the air is nice and clear on whatever planet you live on. Make excuses all you want, but apathy in the American electorate is why Bush and his cronies feel safe in ripping away all our rights and freedoms. Sorry, dude, but you live long enough and you'll see the way it is.

Mr.Musgrave
06-19-2006, 08:45 PM
Man, do you really think voting would stop anything the government really wants to push through? The government does things daily that the people are against and have voted against. It doesn't matter what we say. If they want to do it, they will.

Scott Story
06-19-2006, 09:12 PM
Gah! Musgrave, you miss the point entirely!

OK, there is good reason to be apathetic, there's no doubt. If you live in a state with the electoral college, then there's a 50% chance that your presidential vote won't even be counted, depending on which state you live in. If you live in Ohio or Florida, then you may well be disinfranchised.

The people who run our government, especially the Bush admin., do whatever the hell they want, and they will likely get away with it. I get that.

But when, ever, has giving and not engaging signalled change? How can not getting involved push things further? If you stay out of fray, then you support the status quo, no matter how much you complain, or how bitterly you complain.

Things stink--things have always stunk. Things will never get all fixed and work great--that's human nature, and the nature of human governance. But, things can go really, really bad if people let it. There are a lot of countries where we couldn't have this conversation.

I guess I'll let it go, because minds don't get changed on the internet as a rule. But it's worth considering.

Mr.Musgrave
06-19-2006, 09:26 PM
But when, ever, has giving and not engaging signalled change? How can not getting involved push things further?

And when was the last time getting involved really changed anything? 1776? If you're calling for revolution, I'm all for that, but otherwise I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Thing are bad, they're getting worse, and they're going to keep getting worse no matter who or what you vote for.

And being able to talk about things being bad doesn't mean a damned thing when you still can't do anything about it.

This message goes out to the agents of the NSA.

Scott Story
06-19-2006, 09:36 PM
:sure:

Buckyrig
06-19-2006, 09:46 PM
If you're calling for revolution, I'm all for that..

No Balls!

Mr.Musgrave
06-19-2006, 09:59 PM
:sure:


Yeah, I was expecting that. :rolleyes:

wisper
06-19-2006, 10:38 PM
"the sky is falling, the sky is falling"...Yo!

Scott Story
06-19-2006, 11:00 PM
Yeah, I was expecting that.

Like I said, minds don't get changed on the internet. And, as crappy as the hijinks by our elected (?) officials are, I don't blame people for being disaffected. Still, all I ask is that you consider that your philosophy of exclusion is not the only valid philosophy. I know that nuanced thought and reconsideration are not staples of the web forum, but at least take the idea and consider it. It's not like I'm trying to talk you into creationism, or the flat earth society, or what have you.

I guess I made my point, so I'll stop belaboring it.

In terms of net neutrality, we've already seen the beginning of online segregation. Some countries filter incoming content, moniter it for blogs written by their citizens, make google turn over information. It may well be likely that we have already passed the age of true net neutrality, and it's too late to save it in it's current form. I hope not. We already knew that there are limits to what we can say online with impunity; we already knew the FBI raked our emails for suspicious key words with CLAW; it was only a matter of time before big money interests divided the internet up.

So, if you are nihilist, be happy, because things are always falling apart. That's the nature of it all.

Mr.Musgrave
06-19-2006, 11:41 PM
Like I said, minds don't get changed on the internet. And, as crappy as the hijinks by our elected (?) officials are, I don't blame people for being disaffected. Still, all I ask is that you consider that your philosophy of exclusion is not the only valid philosophy. I know that nuanced thought and reconsideration are not staples of the web forum, but at least take the idea and consider it. It's not like I'm trying to talk you into creationism, or the flat earth society, or what have you.


You're asking people to believe something that isn't realistic so you might as well be asking people to believe the earth is flat. Do you honestly believe what the people makes a difference?

D.J. Coffman
06-19-2006, 11:54 PM
Yeah, it sucks that a lot of messages from actual people will fall on deaf ears.

I saw a list of Senators being kept that shows you who's against, for, and there's a whole section called "No Position" - http://talkingpointsmemo.com/net-neutrality.php - so, it's basically like a handful of senators that even give a shit and won't take sides on any issues, and they play dumb up until the last minute or beyond-- then if for some reason a REAL FIRE ignites on an issue, the ones on that list sitting on their hands and not wanting to ruffle any lobbyist pockets SUDDENLY say "Oh, we're thoroughly researching this issue and looking at all sides"

Politics.. MEH.

I still say, this would effect too much business on the internet. When you have CEOs of Amazon and Ebay, Paypal, AND Google against something online, it's likely not going to happen or get tied up. They have money and power too.

Scott Story
06-20-2006, 10:26 AM
It's true politics suck. Elected officials may go to Washington with plans for change and vision, but by the time they are there for a few years they are eaten by by the machine and become political whores. Sad, but true.

I guess the point is, if we are all just victims, do you want to be a passive victim, or a victim who at least made a stand. I suppose at best it's a moral victory, but at least it's something.

D.J. Coffman
06-20-2006, 10:35 AM
I vote every time I can, because sadly, it's the only real power you have in the democratic system-- but only power in numbers I suppose.

Samuelspade
06-20-2006, 01:44 PM
More on Senate's 'net' provisions (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6085346.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn)


*PDF link of the bill from this article.

Net 'Bill of Rights' (latest draft) (http://i.n.com.com/pdf/ne/2006/comm_bill.pdf) Starts at pg. 144

Scott Story
06-20-2006, 02:33 PM
I really wonder how all this is going to play out. Even once the law is passed, there is no telling what the long-term effects will be for a good while.

Scott Story
06-26-2006, 03:15 PM
I just listened to an interesting take on the Net Neutrality issue on NPR’s New & Notes program. If passed by congress and signed into law by the president, this bill could have several outcomes, all bad:

1) The consumer has to pay more for higher speed surfing—Whether you’ve got dial-up or a T1 line, your download speed would be limited by how much of an additional premium you pay to the cable companies.
2) Content screened by providers—The cable/phone companies become the gatekeepers of content, cutting off internet material to sites or competing providers as they see fit.
3) Content makers charged for level of access—Businesses that function on the internet being forced to pay additional fees, beyond their hosting fees, to the phone/cable companies (owners of the pipelines or net infrastructure) to get the information onto the web, or at least onto the web’s fast lane.

In the end, this could mean everyone pays more for fewer choices and less content. Entrepaneurship will be discouraged, and our struggling democracy will lose one of its last bastions of free speech and independent journalism.

We can't afford to let this go, folks! If we are taken down, we should go down fighting, flipping off the big money interests to the bitter end.

JasonM
06-26-2006, 03:37 PM
I emailed several points about this to everyone in my mailing list. Informing people is the first step to stopping this abomination of a law. Keep it short and sweet but forward the gist to everyone you know. Don't let this abomination pass!

Buckyrig
06-26-2006, 03:48 PM
They'll just create a pirate industry is all. Hacking will get out of control and they'll shoot themselves in the foot in the long run.

JasonM
06-26-2006, 03:57 PM
I just sent a letter to my states house and senate reps. It's easy, just use the links on the first page. Maybe it works, may it won't, but at least I can say I tried!

JasonM
06-27-2006, 03:00 PM
I received a reply to an earlier email I had sent to my Congressman, Pete Hoekstra. I thought it was very interesting and thought I would share.

----------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your comments on the Community Opportunity Promotion Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006.

New technologies and consumer demands drive the need to update
telecommunications regulations. The House recently passed the COPE Act which aims to increase competition in the broadband and video service markets. I believe that the bill did not adequately ensure coverage for all customers,especially those in rural West Michigan, and therefore I did not support final
passage.

Considerable attention was focused on the issue of "network neutrality". The
bill will provide the Federal Communications Commission with the ability to
adjudicate disputes about Internet neutrality. The bill also requires the FCC
to resolve disputes within 90 days and allows it to impose fines for violating
the agency's neutrality principles. An amendment, offered by Ed Markey (D-MA)
requiring stricter enforcement measures and additional mandates regulating
internet traffic, failed to pass. Many concerns were raised that network
neutrality laws could be a first step toward regulating the Internet, and I did
not support these measures.

I recognize the importance of the Internet, the value of competition and
innovation, and the oppressive nature of unnecessary government regulation. I
appreciate the opportunity to hear of your comments and thoughts on the
legislation.

Thanks again for your comments.

Pete
------------------------------------------------

I believe it's in the senate now, so I'd advise those that care to write a letter and send it via email (snail mail is delayed due to searches in case of terrorist activity).

Scott Story
06-27-2006, 03:30 PM
I believe it's in committe today. We'll know more soon.

Scott Story
06-29-2006, 12:06 PM
In committee, the Net Neutrality provisions were left out of the bill by a close vote.

It's not over, but this is not a good sign. Maybe you can look at the close vote as a glass 1/3 full kind of thing, but it's a stretch.

As you have probably asked before, what the hell is wrong those idiots? what's wrong with us for having voted for them?

JasonM
06-29-2006, 12:21 PM
Tell friends and family about this then email or snail mail a senator is all I can suggest. People that do nothing, well, deserve what they get (unfortunately the rest of us will suffer too!).