Printable View
The megamedia corps are trying to pass laws to charge us more for the internet, monopolize news outlets, and create a class system online. This is a Hitlerian Big Brother attempt at mind control at the base level. Please consider and check it out:
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=videos
Check out Jason The Nerd's explanation of what it means on the vid link.
Right on, cj. Hence, my suggestion for him to get the quick take from the nerd.
If only we had some way to access the behind the scenes ploys of big business manipulating the government to propagandize us and empty our pockets in every way possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
If only we had some way to stand up to the bullshit of what we let them do. :rolleyes:
Takes all of three minutes to protest by sending this letter from here:
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/comment.php
What the hell, you might want to give it a shot.
Before protesting is outlawed.
I am writing to express my strong disapproval of any relaxation or elimination of the public interest limits on media ownership. Localism and diversity are the cornerstones of a democratic media system, and we cannot afford to compromise them in any way.
Limits on media consolidation have been a bulwark against the concentration of economic power in the marketplace of ideas -- a critical part of balancing the public service mission of the media with their private profit motive. Our democracy requires the free flow of information from a broad range of diverse voices.
Any public policy seeking to protect diversity in the media must recognize the simple fact that ownership matters. Media consolidation has already led to declines in local and minority ownership as well as the homogenization of content in radio and television. Permitting cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations, or allowing further concentration in local television markets, will only worsen the problems we already have.
When the FCC attempted to weaken and remove media ownership limits in 2003, millions of Americans rose up in protest. Congress and the courts ultimately intervened to turn back that misguided regulatory process.
Now that these same rules are being reconsidered, the FCC should stand firm with the public against further concentration of media ownership in the hands of the few. A vote against media consolidation is a vote for democracy.
Stop the madness that erodes democracy. Stop the greed of absolute corruption by mixing government and business as one entity. Represent the people, not your own selfish interests. Grow a backbone and do the right thing.
I added the last paragraph to personalize it:
Stop the madness that erodes democracy. Stop the greed of absolute corruption by mixing government and business as one entity. Represent the people, not your own selfish interests. Grow a backbone and do the right thing.
Bump for the 8,953,326 lurkers.
Stay hidden, but at least contribute to the internet as a whole in some fashion.
I only wrote the last paragraph.
If I would have written the whole thing, it would have been a helluva lot better than that.
f2f,Quote:
Originally Posted by f2f
Please elaborate....
Good call, heh, rasputin.
For people who don't know how to call their representaives in Congress, just click here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
AND CALL!
\
or you can just get ass-fucked when this bill passes.
What is this about?
This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.
But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.
What is Network Neutrality?
Net Neutrality — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership.
Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.
Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
What's at stake?
Decisions being made now will shape the future of the Internet for a generation. Before long, all media — TV, phone and the Web — will come to your home via the same broadband connection. The dispute over Net Neutrality is about who'll control access to new and emerging technologies.
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.
What's happening in Congress?
Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. The telephone and cable companies are filling up congressional campaign coffers and hiring high-priced lobbyists. They've set up "Astroturf" groups like "Hands Off the Internet" to confuse the issue and give the appearance of grassroots support.
On June 8, the House of Representatives passed the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006," or COPE Act (H.R. 5252) -- a bill that offers no meaningful protections for Net Neutrality. An amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which would have instituted real Net Neutrality requirements, was defeated by intense industry lobbying.
It now falls to the Senate to save the free and open Internet. Fortunately, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) have introduced a bipartisan measure, the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006" (S. 2917), that would provide meaningful protection for Net Neutrality.
On June 28, the Snowe-Dorgan bill was introduced as an amendment to Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-Alaska) major rewrite of the Telecom Act (S.2686). The committee split down the middle on the measure, casting a tie vote of 11-11.
Though meaningul Net Neutrality protections were not added to Stevens' bill, the fight for Internet freedom is gaining serious momentum as the bill moves toward the full Senate later this year. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has threatened to place a "hold" on the entire legislation unless it reinstates Net Neutrality and prevents discrimination on the Internet.
Call Congress today: No senator can in good conscience vote against Internet freedom and with the telecom cartel.
Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations?
No. Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly — not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.
But Net Neutrality doesn't just matter to business owners. If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.
Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the "fast lane."
Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?
No. By far the most significant evidence regarding the network owners' plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so.
The CEOs of all the largest telecom companies have made clear their intent to build a tiered Internet with faster service for the select few companies willing or able to pay the exorbitant tolls.Network Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario. We are taking the telecom execs at their word.
So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing 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 labor dispute.
* Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.
* 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 type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.
Won't more regulations harm the free Internet? Shouldn't we just let the market decide?
Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.
Either we make rules that ensure an even playing field for everyone, or we have rules that hold the Internet captive to the whims of a few big companies. The Internet has thrived because revolutionary ideas like blogs, Wikipedia or Google could start on a shoestring and attract huge audiences. Without Net Neutrality, the pipeline owners will choose the winners and losers on the Web.
The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband access market. And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there will be nowhere else for consumers to turn.
Who's part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition?
The SavetheInternet.com coalition is made up of hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum that are concerned about maintaining a free and open Internet. No corporation or political party is funding our efforts. We simply agree to a statement of principles in support of Internet freedom.
Who else supports Net Neutrality?
The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.
Editorial boards at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Seattle Times, St. Petersburg Times and Christian Science Monitor all have urged congress to save the Internet.
What can I do to help?
Sign the SavetheInternet.com petition.
Call your members of Congress today and demand that Net Neutrality be protected. Encourage groups you're part of to join the SavetheInternet.
remember...
www.freepress.net says it ain't over yet, freshies...........
A bad telecom bill passed the House in June. But the Senate is split over Net Neutrality - as seen in the 11-11 tie vote in the Senate committee that oversees the Internet. The phone and cable lobbyists don't yet have the votes to move their bill forward - and chatter in Washington says it may not be voted on until after the November elections.
If we can keep the pressure up, it is believed that Net Neutrality could derail the entire bill and force Congress to start from scratch from next year. As always, we'll be tracking this and asking for your help.
On our other fronts...
Media Ownership
You couldn't paint a clearer picture of how media policy gets made in Washington than this photo from Details magazine of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin literally in bed with industry lobbyists.
Chairman Martin: Why not get in bed with the public?
Such slumber parties might explain why Martin recently launched his latest attempt to remove the last remaining media ownership limits. Acting under pressure from powerful media corporations, Martin seems determined to let one company swallow up three TV channels, eight radio stations and the daily newspaper all in the same town.
Martin's indifferent to the impact such changes would have on localism and diversity - not to mention the fact that 95 percent of public comments received by the FCC oppose weakening the rules.
The current timeline puts any actual vote at the FCC after the November election. Before then, Martin has pledged to hold "a half dozen" public hearings - but he hasn't yet scheduled a single one.
And that's what they're banking on - to clusterfuck the democratic process so much everyone feels (and thus, becomes) powerless.Quote:
Originally Posted by freshies