(no subject)
Things that are bothering me... Things that overwhelmingly destroy the nature of the internet.
The internet, like ranch, is the great equalizer.
AOL blocks emails that are "anti-AOL"
-"It shouldn't have to cost legitimate e-mail marketers and senders more to get past filters," said John Mozena, co-founder of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email. "We've joked that AOL could become the Don Corleone of e-mail: 'Nice e-mail newsletter you've got going. It would be a shame if it got hurt by getting caught in our filters.' "
It's even in Canada...
-The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is calling on Telus to remove a block on subscribers’ access to a website operated by members of the Telecommunications Workers Union. The union is currently on strike and Telus has blocked access to the Voices for Change website, alleging privacy concerns and that the website encourages the jamming of phone lines to Telus call centres.
And SBC is saying, hey, we're not gonna let [the websites] use our 'pipes' without making them pay for it... when we're already paying for it... they're trying to make both ends pay for it... the more you pay, the 'faster' your site loads... the more prioirity you get... defeating the purpose of the 'free' web...
-"How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" - Edward Whitacre CEO of AT&T Broadband... *(i guess this mean's our fee for broadband access is going to go down? hahahaha... yeah right...)*
I mean, the idea is to codify into law, something that makes the internet 'free'. aka, make the telecom/cable providers abide by the first amendment regarding 'blocked' sites... we're not fucking china... if this doesn't pass... i will further remove my distrust for the market and say that they aren't just irresponsible, but harmful for what is good (and legal) in america...
-Last year, a rural telecom company in North Carolina blocked its users’ access to the Internet-based phone service Vonage, and in Canada the telecom company Telus blocked access to a Web site supporting the telecommunications workers’ union. Market forces will offer some check to this kind of interference-if a particular provider goes too far, customers will take their business elsewhere-but, in the world of broadband, market forces are weak, because most cities have only two major providers.
Now... lets ask you... what do you use more... Yahoo or Google?
-But down at the consumer level, the impact could be different. Customers could face one set of services offered by a cable or phone company -- or a higher-priced list of alternatives from outsiders. If Yahoo was part of the standard-priced bundle, would you pay more for Google? It would be a two-tier world, not the even-up access that the Internet offers now. New upstarts would have a hard time cracking the lineup, while the familiar names stayed on top.
More importantly, this is like how health insurance plans have 'favorite' drugs of choice from certain drug companies... based on how much in 'incentives' the company gives them... even if the drug isn't the 'best' for you... your often 'forced' to go that direction or pay ridiculous 'out of network' costs for drugs... i mean, i'm talking about this from personal experience... you can pay double/triple the cost of what you'd normally pay for an 'in network prescription'... i.e. i used to take adderall... i shoulda probably been on concerta because of my sensitivity to stimulents... but it cost me three times the amount that i woulda had to pay for ritalin (which was my insurance plans 'choice' for me... at about 15 dollars...)... adderall cost me 35 dollars... and concerta woulda cost me somewhere around fifty dollars... now translate that idea to the internet... you're a heavy lexis-nexis user... neither of the telcom's in your area have a deal with lexis-nexis... it can be outright blocked and/or run near 56k speed... akin to, you can't get the drug you need or you get a watered down version that doesn't work as well...
both. both are ridic...
The internet, like ranch, is the great equalizer.
AOL blocks emails that are "anti-AOL"
-"It shouldn't have to cost legitimate e-mail marketers and senders more to get past filters," said John Mozena, co-founder of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email. "We've joked that AOL could become the Don Corleone of e-mail: 'Nice e-mail newsletter you've got going. It would be a shame if it got hurt by getting caught in our filters.' "
It's even in Canada...
-The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is calling on Telus to remove a block on subscribers’ access to a website operated by members of the Telecommunications Workers Union. The union is currently on strike and Telus has blocked access to the Voices for Change website, alleging privacy concerns and that the website encourages the jamming of phone lines to Telus call centres.
And SBC is saying, hey, we're not gonna let [the websites] use our 'pipes' without making them pay for it... when we're already paying for it... they're trying to make both ends pay for it... the more you pay, the 'faster' your site loads... the more prioirity you get... defeating the purpose of the 'free' web...
-"How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" - Edward Whitacre CEO of AT&T Broadband... *(i guess this mean's our fee for broadband access is going to go down? hahahaha... yeah right...)*
I mean, the idea is to codify into law, something that makes the internet 'free'. aka, make the telecom/cable providers abide by the first amendment regarding 'blocked' sites... we're not fucking china... if this doesn't pass... i will further remove my distrust for the market and say that they aren't just irresponsible, but harmful for what is good (and legal) in america...
-Last year, a rural telecom company in North Carolina blocked its users’ access to the Internet-based phone service Vonage, and in Canada the telecom company Telus blocked access to a Web site supporting the telecommunications workers’ union. Market forces will offer some check to this kind of interference-if a particular provider goes too far, customers will take their business elsewhere-but, in the world of broadband, market forces are weak, because most cities have only two major providers.
Now... lets ask you... what do you use more... Yahoo or Google?
-But down at the consumer level, the impact could be different. Customers could face one set of services offered by a cable or phone company -- or a higher-priced list of alternatives from outsiders. If Yahoo was part of the standard-priced bundle, would you pay more for Google? It would be a two-tier world, not the even-up access that the Internet offers now. New upstarts would have a hard time cracking the lineup, while the familiar names stayed on top.
More importantly, this is like how health insurance plans have 'favorite' drugs of choice from certain drug companies... based on how much in 'incentives' the company gives them... even if the drug isn't the 'best' for you... your often 'forced' to go that direction or pay ridiculous 'out of network' costs for drugs... i mean, i'm talking about this from personal experience... you can pay double/triple the cost of what you'd normally pay for an 'in network prescription'... i.e. i used to take adderall... i shoulda probably been on concerta because of my sensitivity to stimulents... but it cost me three times the amount that i woulda had to pay for ritalin (which was my insurance plans 'choice' for me... at about 15 dollars...)... adderall cost me 35 dollars... and concerta woulda cost me somewhere around fifty dollars... now translate that idea to the internet... you're a heavy lexis-nexis user... neither of the telcom's in your area have a deal with lexis-nexis... it can be outright blocked and/or run near 56k speed... akin to, you can't get the drug you need or you get a watered down version that doesn't work as well...
both. both are ridic...