Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread >Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject:

Sublime Peach





Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/20/2010 at 09:36 PM
]

[Edited on 1/6/2012 by jerryphilbob]

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."

- John Lennon

 
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/20/2010 at 09:52 PM
We'd better hope that the internet stays relatively unregulated or we're another step closer to Big Brother. Anyone got an extra ham radio for sale?

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/20/2010 at 10:01 PM
The FCC has no place and no right to regulate the internet.

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9313
(9390 all sites)
Registered: 10/29/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/20/2010 at 10:06 PM
quote:
The FCC has no place and no right to regulate the internet.
Now THAT'S funny!
They'll do what they want,when they want. This ought to help put an end to those pesky Assange types.

 

____________________
Well 30 years of heart and soul,lord we took it further than rock and roll.
We stood together thru thick and thin,yeah we made the best of it all back then.
Then I guess time took it's toll,cut me deep,cut me cold.
Brother against brother....

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 03:25 AM
quote:
The FCC has no place and no right to regulate the internet.


Oh I am sure that no broadband company would block another broadband's content if left to their own devices.

NOT!

 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 09:22 AM
quote:
quote:
The FCC has no place and no right to regulate the internet.


Oh I am sure that no broadband company would block another broadband's content if left to their own devices.

NOT!




Not sure I even understand what you mean here.

 

____________________

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 09:39 AM
If the FCC has their way, the internet will become more like cable tv. It would be like Netflix not getting some movies for 30 days, accept you simply would not get those movies if you didn't have that specific provider. I am sure you will be able to pay and upgrade your services. It is all about control and making money, more about control though. I love the soft fascism of Amerika .

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."



- John Lennon

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3106
(3106 all sites)
Registered: 5/16/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 09:48 AM
quote:
The FCC has no place and no right to regulate the internet.


You might want to read this Doug.

http://www.allmanbrothersband.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&am p;file=viewthread&tid=112648

especially, the Washington Post link I put in there. The future of America is about LESS freedom, not more, and the sad thing about that is, many American will go right along with what the government tells them to do.

[Edited on 12/21/2010 by sibwlkr]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 12:35 PM
People don't realize how the net of 'oversight' by the government is tightening. And as stated, they're perfectly content to give powers to the government against their best interests in the name of 'security.' Some people, I suppose, are just easily frightened.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 03:31 PM
I don't like the government overseeing cable tv. It leads to less competition, higher prices and worse service for consumers. The over the air regulation is justified because there is a limited amount of bandwidth and it can be argued that this belongs to the public at large. This does not hold true for the internet. The only place the government has is ensuring that anti-trust andti-competition laws are not violated. When it comes to first amendment I tend to err on the libertarian side.

 

____________________

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 04:10 PM


FCC Passes Compromise Net Neutrality Rules

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski presiding over an open internet meeting in March 2010. Photo Credit: Greg Elin

In a closely watched vote, the FCC approved compromise net neutrality rules Tuesday that would forbid the nation’s largest cable and DSL internet service providers from blocking or slowing online services, while leaving wireless companies with much more latitude.

After five years of contentious debate that polarized the tech policy world, FCC chief Julius Genachowski made good on President Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to strengthen rules on the nation’s ISPs. The measure, which passed 3-2 along party lines, did not go as far as supporters would have liked, but the FCC faced steep resistance from D.C. Republicans and the powerful telecom lobbying machine.

The FCC’s order is a milestone in the multi-year battle over so-called “net neutrality,” which is the principle that broadband service providers shouldn’t be able to interfere or block web traffic, or favor their own services at the expense of smaller rivals. Without net neutrality, which ensures that everyone has open access to the internet, revolutionary web startups like Google, Facebook and Twitter may never gotten off the ground, proponents argue.

The three new rules, which will go into effect early next year, force ISPs to be transparent about how they handle network congestion, prohibit them from blocking traffic such as Skype on wired networks, and outlaw “unreasonable” discrimination on those networks, meaning they can’t put an online video service in the slow lane to benefit their own video services.

The measure pleased few, and raised howls of outrage from those who say the measure will stifle broadband investment and those who say the measure doesn’t do enough to keep online innovation thriving.

“Despite promising to fulfill President Obama’s campaign promise of enacting network neutrality rules to protect an open Internet, the FCC has instead prioritized the profits of corporations like AT&T over those of the general public, Internet entrepreneurs, and local businesses across the country,” said Sascha Meinrath, Director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative.

Meinrath served on Obama’s idealistic technology, media, and telecom working group during the 2008 campaign. Genachowski was in charge of the group.

During the meeting, Geachowski chided what he called “extremists” on both sides for their “chutzpah.” He said the new rules would advance the administration’s goal of making America’s broadband system the “freest and fastest in the world.”

So what actually has changed here? Although there is much sound and fury being devoted to the new rules, in reality, they differ little from the principles put into place by former Republican FCC chairman Michael Powell in 2005. Those principles set the foundation for the concepts of transparency, non-discrimination, and reasonable network management at the heart of the FCC’s present order.

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, offered cautious support for the new rules.

“While we look forward to reviewing the final order, the rules as described generally appear intended to strike a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace for certainty and everyone’s desire that Internet openness be preserved,” Comcast Executive Vice President David L. Cohen said in a statement. “Most importantly, this approach removes the cloud of Title II regulation that would unquestionably have harmed innovation and investment in the Internet and broadband infrastructure.”

The need for the new rules largely stemmed from Comcast’s court challenge to the FCC, after the regulatory agency ordered Comcast to never again block peer-to-peer file sharing. In April, a federal judge ruled that the FCC’s legal basis for the order was inadequate, essentially neutering the agency’s ability to regulate internet access providers.

Comcast, AT&T and Verizon had vigorously opposed an earlier FCC plan — which still technically exists on the FCC docket, which would have reclassified broadband as a communications service. That would have given the commission clear authority to enforce net neutrality, but opponents likened it to returning to the days of government regulation of the phone network.

Today’s order does not formally extend the protections to wireless networks, nor does it prohibit so-called “paid-prioritization,” in which the broadband companies could create high-speed, high-priced fast lanes for premium customers. In fact, the order goes so far as to actually create a new category of internet service — so called “specialized services.”

Industry experts predict that the rules face almost certain challenge in federal court, and just minutes after the meeting ended, Verizon Wireless, the largest mobile provider in the country, said it was “deeply concerned” by the FCC’s move.

“Based on today’s announcement, the FCC appears to assert broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband wireline and wireless networks and the Internet itself,” Tom Tauke, Verizon’s executive vice president of public affairs, policy and communications, said in a statement. “This assertion of authority without solid statutory underpinnings will yield continued uncertainty for industry, innovators, and investors. In the long run, that is harmful to consumers and the nation.”

Verizon did not say if it would seek to challenge the new rules in federal court, but most industry observers expect an eventual legal showdown, whether it involves Verizon or one of the other broadband giants.

“Because the rules are very high-level, their meaning and impact will be determined by how the facts on the ground develop over the next few years, and thus we expect the battle will continue in the marketplace and through FCC case-by-case enforcement, as well as in Congress and the courts,” Rebecca Arbogast, Managing Director at Stifel Nicolaus, wrote in a note to clients.

“We expect the order to come under attack from Republicans in Congress and from stakeholder critics in court,” Arbogast added.

The meeting exposed the bitter philosophical and ideological differences that have pitted supporters of net neutrality with opponents, including the big broadband companies and their allies, who say the rules are an unnecessary burden on a system that works just fine.

“We are skeptical Republicans will gain enough Democratic support to undo the FCC order and could also face a presidential veto if they get a bill through Congress, while litigation prospects will depend on the strength of the FCC’s order, the parties that are challenging it, and the court that hears the case,” Arbogast wrote.

The formal order has not been released yet, because the FCC needs to incorporate responses to dissenting commissioners into the order. FCC officials said it could take a few days before the order is made public.



What's that smell??? FASCISM !!!

[Edited on 12/21/2010 by jerryphilbob]

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."



- John Lennon

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3105
(3108 all sites)
Registered: 1/7/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 04:13 PM
What does the 1st amendment have to do with Net Neutrality?
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 04:22 PM
quote:
What does the 1st amendment have to do with Net Neutrality?


The government is involving itself in the regulation of expression. It clearly involves the 1st amendment. As I mentioned above, regulation of over the air broadcasting can be justified on the grounds that those airwaves are limited. But there is not limit to the internet. There should be no government involvement.

 

____________________

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3105
(3108 all sites)
Registered: 1/7/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 04:24 PM
What are you talking about? How is the government regulating expression?
 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12496
(12486 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 04:42 PM
quote:
quote:
What does the 1st amendment have to do with Net Neutrality?


The government is involving itself in the regulation of expression. It clearly involves the 1st amendment. As I mentioned above, regulation of over the air broadcasting can be justified on the grounds that those airwaves are limited. But there is not limit to the internet. There should be no government involvement.


The way I read it, net neutrality doesn't "limit" anything, in fact just the opposite...it makes sure private companies can't limit expression by articfically limiting/slowing access to content that originates someplace else on the web besides their own service.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 05:58 PM
quote:
it makes sure private companies can't limit expression by articfically limiting/slowing access to content that originates someplace else on the web besides their own service.

Where is this happening? Just curious? Seems like another power grab to me?

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."



- John Lennon

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3105
(3108 all sites)
Registered: 1/7/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 06:04 PM
quote:
quote:
it makes sure private companies can't limit expression by articfically limiting/slowing access to content that originates someplace else on the web besides their own service.

Where is this happening? Just curious? Seems like another power grab to me?


You don't ever make much effort to actually understand any issues do you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html

Edited to add this specific thing for JPB.

The court ruling, which came after Comcast asserted that it had the right to slow its cable customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent, could prompt efforts in Congress to change the law in order to give the F.C.C. explicit authority to regulate Internet service.

[Edited on 12/21/2010 by tbomike]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 06:16 PM
quote:


They're calling it net neutrality, but it isn't.
What the mainstream media isn't reporting
net neutrality sell out



Today President Obama's Federal Communications Commission betrayed the fundamental principle of net neutrality and sold us out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

This is the culmination of a long struggle, and it's important we discuss frankly what led to this point. So this will be a longer e-mail than we traditionally send, with some recommended action items at the end.

Despite what you may have read in the headlines, the rules passed by the FCC today amount to nothing more than a cynical ploy by Democrats to claim a victory on net neutrality while actually caving on real protections for consumers.

Make no mistake, AT&T lobbyists pre-approved this proposal, which means consumers lost and Big Telecom won.

Net neutrality is a principle that says that Internet users, not Internet service providers (ISPs), should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.

Yet today the FCC, let by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski and cheered on by the White House, voted to adopt rules that will enshrine in federal regulations for the first time the ability of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs to discriminate between sources and types of content. And despite the fact that there is only one Internet, the rules also largely exempt cell phones and wireless devices from what meager protections the rules afford.

It's no exaggeration to say that this decision marks the beginning of the end for the Internet as we know it.

Senator Al Franken laid out what's at stake with this ruling, saying:

"The FCC's action today is simply inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. I am particularly disappointed to learn that the order will not specifically ban paid prioritization, allowing big companies to pay for a fast lane on the Internet and abandoning the foundation of net neutrality. The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications, and devices. Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it's often the only choice for broadband."


So how did we get here? Just two years ago, net neutrality advocates were heartened by the election of a president who promised to defend net neutrality and appoint an FCC Chair who would do the same.

Initially, things looked good. After President Obama was inaugurated and after he appointed Chairman Genachowski to head the FCC, we had what we thought were three net neutrality supporters on the five-member commission and the support of the president. It seemed reasonable, therefore, to support the FCC in writing the net neutrality regulations that we needed.

But it was the FCC's unwillingness to undo a Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband Internet providers that demonstrated how weak the Obama administration's support for net neutrality really was.

This Bush-era decision classified broadband Internet providers outside of the legal framework that traditionally applied to companies that offer two-way communication services

After a federal court ruled that unless the FCC reversed the Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband the FCC couldn't enforce net neutrality rules, Genachowski tested the waters with a proposal to reregulate (or in the jargon of the FCC "reclassify") broadband. Genachowski himself said that, according to the FCC General Counsel, pushing ahead with policies without reregulating broadband would be unwise given the tenuous legal footing the FCC would find itself in. In fact, Genachowski said:

"...continuing to pursue policies with respect to broadband Internet access [without reclassifying broadband] has a serious risk of failure in court. It would involve a protracted, piecemeal approach to defending essential policy initiatives designed to protect consumers, promote competition, extend broadband to all Americans, pursue necessary public safety measures, and preserve the free and open Internet. The concern is that this path would lead the Commission straight back to its current uncertain situation-and years will have passed without actually implementing the key policies needed to improve broadband in America and enhance economic growth and broad opportunity for all Americans."

But the Chairman changed his tune after he unsurprisingly came under pressure from the telecom giants.

From what we can gather, one of the decisive moments came when 74 Democrats signed a letter to the FCC warning Genachowski not to reclassify broadband. The letter, which was promoted by telecom lobbyists, cleverly included language to support Congressional action to address the issue of net neutrality. But given that Congress was demonstrably beholden to the telecom lobbyists, and with the Republicans threatening the FCC outright, the subtext was clear. No FCC action on reclassification meant no viable chance to implement real net neutrality rules.

CREDO aggressively acted to hold these Democrats accountable for their letter. 119,096 of us signed petitions. We held in district meetings at the offices of 12 signers. But at that point it was too late. The damage had been done.

Chairman Genachowski was quickly cowed by political pressure and signaled an unwillingness to reclassify broadband. And rather than trying to give us net neutrality protections, he has instead sought to find a way of cynically passing something he can claim is net neutrality, when it's nothing of the sort.

We continued to fight and over the course of our campaign we submitted 158,702 public comments supporting real net neutrality. Our members made over 6,500 phone calls to the FCC. And sent 65,911 faxes to liberal FCC Commissioner Michael Copps in a last ditch attempt to get him to refuse to go along with Genachowski on his fake net neutrality proposal.

In the end, there is no way to paint this decision today as anything less than a defeat for net neutrality advocates and for our democracy.

The process demonstrated a breakdown in institutions of government that are supposed to safeguard the public interest and implement the will of the people. Here we have an example of a federal agency with the full power and authority to fulfill its mandate and protect the public interest, caving to nothing more than the withering stare of those they must regulate. The president said he supported net neutrality. There was no Republican filibuster holding us back. We simply needed the Chairman to propose real net neutrality rules that would hold up in a court of law, and we needed the three Democrats on the FCC to vote to pass them. It was that simple. And yet we failed to make it happen.

The lack of political will to confront the telecommunications giants effectively gave these oligarchic interests a veto over the rules that govern their behavior. In this way the narrow interests of a few powerful and wealthy corporations were prioritized over the public good and the literally millions of people who spoke out and demanded that the FCC protect our free and open Internet.

This is a clear example of industry capture of a regulatory body, and a damning indictment of government institutions that are supposed to regulate — not be run by — corporate interests.

Also let's remember that a free and open Internet is an important part of 21st Century democracy. By failing to protect it, this set of rulings is similar to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that tilted the realm of public discourse even more in favor of the wealthy and the powerful.

We have to be honest and share with you who have fought with us for real net neutrality a frank assessment of what just happened at the FCC. There is not right now a next step we can propose that will undo the damage that was done today to the free and open Internet.

But we will not simply lie down and give up. Here are four things you can do now to fight the corporate interests that gave birth to this situation we find ourselves in:

1) Read and share this blog post by our friends at Progressive Campaign Change Committee with three things everyone needs to know about Chairman Genachowski's fake net neutrality rules. huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenbaum/breaking-fcc-breaks-obama_b_799844.html

2) Tell the FCC to at least oppose the increased consolidation of our media by opposing the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. Click here to take action.

3) Harry Reid's new chief of staff is a former telecom lobbyist and contributor to Republican causes. Tell Reid to fire him. Click here to take action.

4) Lastly, one senator fought to the end — Sen. Al Franken. Click here to join us in thanking him for standing up for net neutrality.

Thank you for continuing to fight.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/21/2010 at 11:18 PM
quote:
The court ruling, which came after Comcast asserted that it had the right to slow its cable customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent, could prompt efforts in Congress to change the law in order to give the F.C.C. explicit authority to regulate Internet service.

So who did this hurt and how? My internet works just fine. Like I said, just another power grab by the fascist regime. No surprises here.

quote:
Al Franken said, "I am particularly disappointed to learn that the order will not specifically ban paid prioritization, allowing big companies to pay for a fast lane on the Internet and abandoning the foundation of net neutrality. The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications, and devices."

No surprise here either, the Progressives didn't think they went far enough? They won't be satisfied until they totally control all the information you get. They want control of internet content? They now have their foot in the door and now they will simply kick it in, just like health care. Brilliant .

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."



- John Lennon

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19006
(19472 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/22/2010 at 12:28 AM
quote:
We'd better hope that the internet stays relatively unregulated or we're another step closer to Big Brother. Anyone got an extra ham radio for sale?


Well, Larry Flynt of Hustler Magazine fame donated $50,000 to Julian Assange's group, so maybe Assange being a computer technie type can create a chip where people can get on and bypass the govt. stuff. (Like that Magic Jack technology that lets you make calls from your computer without having a phone or even a Cable regulated line, just right over the fiberoptics.)

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 
 


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com