Internet freedom just got the federal ax. (The net will be censored!!)

[converted_democrat]

This is a long piece, but well worth the read. The "free flow" of information is under attack. Please take the time to read the whole article!!!! I am NOT being an alarmist, the internet will be censored, soon.


Web of Deceit: How Internet Freedom Got the Federal Ax, And Why Corporate News Censored the Story

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.

The days are now numbered for surfing an uncensored, open-access Internet, using your favorite search engine to search a bottomless cyber-sea of information in the grandest democratic forum ever conceived by humankind. Instead you can look forward to Googling about on a walled-off, carefully selected corpus of government propaganda and sanitized information "safe" for public consumption. Indoctrinated and sealed off from the outer world, you will inhabit a matrix where every ounce of creative, independent thinking that challenges government policies and values will be squelched. Just a wild conspiracy theory, you say? No longer can this be rationally maintained.

Federal government--from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to the White House--and corporate mainstream media have worked cooperatively to quietly block open access to cyberspace. Seizing its infrastructure, corporate mainstream media have censored and covered up its logistical moves—including lobbies in Congress and the FCC, the filing of suits in state and federal courts, and quid pro quo with the highest government officials--to commandeer, monopolize, and turn the Internet into an extension of itself. From Fox News to CNN, there has been dead silence as the greatest bastion of democracy in history is being torn down and resurrected in its own image. Now, as the corporate newsrooms remain mum, it has gotten the green light from the highest federal court in the land.

On June 27, 2005, in a 6 to 3 decision (National Cable & Telecommunications Association vs. Brand X Internet Services) the United States Supreme Court ruled that giant cable companies like Comcast and Verizon are not required to share their cables with other Internet service providers (ISPs). The Court opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, was fashioned to serve corporate interests. Instead of taking up the question of whether corporate monopolies would destroy the open-access architecture of the Internet, it used sophistry and legally- suspect arguments to obscure its constitutional duty to protect media diversity, free speech, and the public interest.

The Court accepted the FCC's conclusion reached in 2002 that cable companies don't "offer" telecommunication services according to the meaning of the 1996 Telecommunication Act, which defines telecommunication purely in terms of transmission of information among or between users. According to the FCC, cable modem service is not a telecommunications offering because consumers always use high speed wire transmission as a necessary part of other services like browsing the web and sending and receiving e-mail messages. The FCC maintained that these offerings are information services, which manipulate and transform data instead of merely transmitting them. Since the Act only requires companies offering telecommunication services to share their lines with other ISPs (the so-called "common carriage" requirement), the FCC concluded that cable companies are exempt from this requirement.



http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/07/con05238.html

[converted_democrat]

1. Snip

"The logistics of this well organized assault on American democracy by corporate mainstream media can be summed up in this one simple principle: Whoever controls the conduit controls the content. Media broadcast corporations like CBS, ABC, and NBC control the spectrum that carries their broadcasts; they are therefore able to determine the content of their programming. Cable TV news networks like News Corp's Fox News and Time-Warner's CNN own the cables that carry their news shows, and therefore can control what passes as "news."

Snip-
When the London Times leaked the so called "Downing Street Memo," the Internet buzzed with how Americans were deceived and lied to about the Bush Administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq. While at first, the mainstream media gave scant attention to this memo, the shockwaves sent out from the Internet were simply too strong to be ignored indefinitely. Even so, the mainstream broadcast media, from NBC's Chris Matthews to Fox's O'Reilly, still ignored the substance of the memo (namely that "the facts" about the threat to U.S. security posed by Saddam Hussein were being "fixed" to fit a policy of preemptive war). Instead, it focused on peripheral issues (such as whether the Bush Administration had an exit plan) and it largely dismissed the memo as "nothing new."

So what if the Internet blogs were themselves walled off and thereby prevented from sounding the alarm in the first place? No American would then have even been aware of the memo's existence! And the Bush Administration would have avoided being placed in the position of answering to the American people. Without a free Internet, Americans are therefore vulnerable with no defense against media and government propaganda. The government is protected against the people instead of conversely. Walled off from a free Internet, America is walled off from the truth, and there is no longer freedom in America.

[converted_democrat]

10. Sorry dupe.

[evolved Anarchopunk]

2. This needs to be discussed at length

any micro/macro economic majors here on DU? This is preposterous, the idea that this obscure, out of the public eye legislation will somehow compel small privates companies across the nation to lay thousands of miles of cable probably OVER existing cables... ehh, ahhh, arrgggghhh. my brain ! help.

I have a lot to say, but this thought is most important:

If the internet was culturing a conservative mentality, that is to say, if free access to the internet was creating a new generation of
Republicans based on mutual consensus around the world, YOU WOULD SEE NOTHING LIKE THIS. nothing close. nope, our administration would be tripping over themselves to offer "everyone the right to share our common resources. I mean it's only right!" would say some republican dolt.

anti-intellectualism lies at the base of this as well, please kick this (lengthy) story.

[converted_democrat]

3. Thank you for taking the time to read the article...Pretty alarming stuff.

I knew that the government would have to do something about the internet if they wished to remain in control, but I had no idea something like this could or would happen. This was done back door all the way, and the fact that the media is complicit is even more alarming.

[Alpharetta]

4. How the Chinese people thwarted repression

They had webs of fax machines between like-minded people.

True, the government can impede the free flow of information. But people are too smart and resilient to be repressed forever.

Here's a few things that will keep us from being walled off:

Encryption
Offshore websites
remailers
pre-paid cellphones with internet capability
free market pressure by countries with less repressive policies

[converted_democrat]

7. That isn't the point. The point is we are U.S.A. not China...............

I realize that it will be hard to wall us off completely, but that is hardly the point. This is AMERICA. America is using the same trick CHINA did to repress. ----The beauty of the DSM is that you could tell someone about it and they could google it. Look it up see it for themselves. That won't be the case now.

[gatorboy]

31. Actually America business has been testing their tricks on China

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1136045,00.html

Technology sold by Microsoft to the Chinese government has been used by Beijing to censor the internet, and resulted in the jailing of its political opponents.

An Amnesty International report has cited Microsoft among a clutch of leading computer firms heavily criticised for helping to fuel 'a dramatic rise in the number of people detained or sentenced for internet-related offences'.
----------------------
China is the world's most aggressive censor of the internet. Websites are banned for using words such as 'Taiwan', 'Tibet', 'democracy', 'dissident' and 'human rights'. Amnesty has recorded dozens of cases of political opponents jailed for circulating material offensive to the Chinese government.

[nolabels]

14. And undoubtedly a whole lot of other things to numerous to mention

The first step in enslaving anybody is to make them think they have no alternative. In China, where the repression can be brutal and encompassing the threat of a real peoples movement lives on, boo ya you effing control freaks

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. This is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Please also cross-post in the FSPI Forum:

To help keep it visible, please cross-post at least a heads-up about this thread in the Free Speech, Press, & Internet Forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=319

[atommom]

6. kick

[mopinko]

8. google already censors

as a google advertiser, i have been censored many, many times. in fact, i was originally refused as an advertiser. but even after rules changes that allowed me to advertise, they continue to disable "hot" keywords in less than a day. recent goodies include- downing street memo, karl rove, and impeach bush.

[dmr]

9. I ran into that problem last week

when I wanted to find out where a quote originated.

Thanks for posting this, because I came to that conclusion last week, and it ticks me off royally. How dare they?!?

I spent an entire afternoon and on into the evening to find the origin of Robert Novak's quote "I didn't dig it out. It was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it."

I could find only one establishment source (NY Times) that carried that quote (the others were either non-establishment sites, progressive sites, and one was Free Republic).

The NY Times link was buried deeply in the net. It took hours to find and four search engines. The Times article told me the quote originated from Newsday.

It then took well over an hour to get Newsday to cough up the article to purchase. When I tried to buy it, I kept getting error pages saying the article didn't exist. I kept trying. I finally was able to purchase it. What was the glitch in buying this? A website problem or was the glitch being it allowed me to buy it?

Interestingly, I found after reading AG Gonzales first memo to the White House asking for all the communication documents related to the Plame case - three media names were included - the two Newsday reporters and Robert Novak.

[magellan]

49. Use Webferret

I just used my search tool - Webferret - on Novak's quote and found sources at CNN and ABC News fairly quickly. Webferret searches multiple search engines (not including google) all at once. I've been using it for years and highly recommend it. Free version download at Ferretsoft.com.

[dmr]

51. Thank you, magellan

You know, I used this a couple of years ago, but when I had to reformat my pc, I couldn't for the life of me remember it's name. I appreciate the heads up.

:)

[magellan]

52. Glad to help. :-) (nt)

[symbolman]

55. I've encountered the same problem

it's like the scene in 1984 where Winston Smith has a job in which he's required to change news, erase people who used to heroes, etc - then throw the "old" news into a burner..

I was researching Novak as well, doing a lot of looking into time frames on the Plame case and discovered that the search engines are filled up with THIS week's news and Last weeks is virtually nowhere to be found - you can scroll through 50 pages on Google about what Luskin had said regarding comments on Rove and only the latest bullshit keep showing up, no matter HOW you word your inquiry..

It's like they've given the net Alzheimers or a 7 second attention span.

I noticed it a few years ago when I was making lots of flash movies - with graphics and photos - used to be you could use Alta Vista and find thousands of images of ONE item, no matter what you asked for.. now you get three pages and the size and resolution get progressively smaller, while graphics and pics that are totally unrelated start showing up..

Google "image" search is nearly useless..

I propose that we create a religion, one where we invoke the web as God and all of us are accolytes and evangelizers, Priest and Priestess, then apply for religious status, and start lobbying the govt as a religion, demanding that the free flow of information to everyone is a god given right. Also that we want some of that Faith Based govt money...

I'm actually not kidding :)

[OneBlueSky]

11. "Whoever controls the conduit controls the content. . .

Media broadcast corporations like CBS, ABC, and NBC control the spectrum that carries their broadcasts; they are therefore able to determine the content of their programming. Cable TV news networks like News Corp's Fox News and Time-Warner's CNN own the cables that carry their news shows, and therefore can control what passes as "news." Gigantic radio empires like Clear Channel and Infinity have crowded out the smaller broadcasters and now determine the content of mainstream radio. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, now on a campaign to restrict "liberal" programming, controls National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). Colossal media corporations like Time Warner, which also own mainstream movie distribution companies, also control the content of the movies most Americans watch. Publishers of books are also part of this intricate corporate media web. For example, News Corp. owns Harper-Collins.

"All of these companies have interconnected corporate boards with a relatively small number of officers. And they have well entrenched business relationships with the government, for example, dependence on government officialdom for the content of their news reports; enormous financial incentives to receive government contracts (for example, General Electric's NBC has interests in military contracts to produce jet engines); interests in government deregulation of media ownership caps and cross-market ownership, and lucrative tax incentives. As a result of this intricate web of quid pro quo, the mainstream media is to America what Pravda used to be for the now defunct Soviet Union: disseminators of an array of government-friendly, self-censored, whitewashed propaganda."

scary, indeed . . .

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

12. Receiving email is not telecom??? WTF?

"cable modem service is not a telecommunications offering because consumers always use high speed wire transmission as a necessary part of other services like browsing the web and sending and receiving e-mail messages."

I don't understand the implications of this, but the "logic" makes no sense. Receiving email or using a web browser to interact with a remote server involve exchange of messages created by computers that are NOT part of the cable modem service. All the cable modem does is transmit these messages back and forth. This decision makes as much sense as the Supreme Court's ruling to hand the presidency to George Bush in 2000.

[dogday]

13. Today's article may be tomorrow's memory

It might be best to start saving articles of extreme interest or printing them out...

[converted_democrat]

15. I think your right........

We should start saving things like never before. This just makes me sick. Sick.

[DS1]

16. I don't see much more than hysteria in this article in a bid

for readership.

The article points out that cable companies don't have to share their lines, because the cable lines aren't phone lines. First, this does nothing to prove anything about the author's subsequent conclusion that the internet will be censored. Second, it completly leaves out DSL, and regular phone internet service, and satellite internet service - possibly from foreign ISPs. Third, there's this:

Whoever controls the conduit controls the content. Media broadcast corporations like CBS, ABC, and NBC control the spectrum that carries their broadcasts; they are therefore able to determine the content of their programming. Cable TV news networks like News Corp's Fox News and Time-Warner's CNN own the cables that carry their news shows, and therefore can control what passes as "news." Gigantic radio empires like Clear Channel and Infinity have crowded out the smaller broadcasters and now determine the content of mainstream radio.

The fact that the big corporations do have a lot of traffic on their news sites is completely irrevelant to the FCC ruling. It doesn't mean any Joe Blogger suddenly can't register and run his own news domain. It's an utterly silly conclusion.

In short, the author's a completely uninformed tinfoilhatting idiot.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. I'm With You, DS1

I didn't see the basis for the censorship fear in any of this article. Maybe there were prior reports that were needed for context, but this seems an enormous leap of logic to me.
The Professor

[DS1]

18. Don't forget, the Government shut down file sharing, too

;-)

[bemildred]

20. Ditto that, Cable Cos would have to run and maintain packer filters ...

To censor content, and that is a lot of work, costs money, and will piss off customers. This is just about stifling competition.

[DS1]

22. It would require about the telcom equivalent of the Chinese Red Army to

censor EVERYTHING :hi:

[bemildred]

25. I hope it pays well, a lot of us can use some work. nt

[DS1]

27. New employees have to suffer through censoring gaming clan websites

and all their flash intros

[bemildred]

30. LOL. You are right. The BeeGees official fan site ... nt

[Occulus]

38. That doesn't stop Yahoo and AOL from removing 'objectionable' pages

Offer 5000 jobs to your community. Make the internet safe for children.

We can't let our children know people disagree.
We can't let our children hear 'bad news'.

And on, and on. Do you really think they care about how much it'll cost? Or I could ask, do you know how much money we spend daily in Iraq?

Customers will learn to be not pissed off, if they don't have a choice in the matter. Watch. It is about stifling competition, though- financially, and politically.

[bemildred]

45. You are correct, except ...

that yeah I think it matters how much it costs, and who it costs that much, and how much trouble it is, and it still would not work to stifle dissent. You just create a market space for non-censors. I already do not go to sites that harass me with registration and demands for money, and my name is legion. It is true that the people that do not care now will continue to not care, but they are not the target of censorship in the first place. I'm not saying they can't do it, I saying it's expensive and it won't work and it's a political loser.

[GregW]

21. Ditto, DS1

This is ridiculous as saying, "I own the toll road and I am going to check the ID of every driver on that road and only let those I want to drive" ... except some of the drivers will have disguises impenetrable to your examination.

[converted_democrat]

23. Please read the story again..........

Not only are these monoliths poised to noncompetitively control the price of their services, thereby preventing poorer citizens from broadband access, they are now able to monitor and control the content of information that can be accessed by millions of American through these pipes.

The main alternative to high speed Internet (broadband) via cable is presently slower modem connectivity via Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service over telephone lines. Telephone companies have traditionally been required by government to share their lines with other ISPs, thereby assuring greater competition and diversity in content. But the Court has now given the FCC the right to abandon this common carriage requirement to render it consistent with the broadband cable industry; and, as FCC Chair Kevin Martin has already given the nod to the telephone companies, it should only be a matter of time before the telephone lines are also deregulated and alternative, independent commercial ISPs are banished altogether from cyberspace.

Broadband and DSL are therefore on their way to becoming extensions of corporate mainstream media. In fact, the companies that have taken control of the Internet are themselves part of an intricate web of corporate media ownership. For example, Time Warner and Comcast, have recently purchased Adelphia. Moreover, companies such as Google are in a strategic position to become front men for mainstream corporate Internet. This financially prosperous dot com, which now rivals Time Warner in net worth, has advertising relations with Verizon and partnerships with companies such as News Corp. There have also been a number of documented instances in which Google has engaged in questionable censorship practices. It is therefore no stretch to imagine this company taking its place as gatekeeper of a government-friendly mainstream corporate Internet.

[DS1]

26. Wrong again

I appreciate the concern, but you're making a leap in logic that's unsupportable.

[converted_democrat]

33. Sorry, I disagree.

These court cases were handed down very quietly. Too quietly. Besides that why would Scalia use unnecessary legal jargon that could be so easily misconstrued, if there wasn't an ulterior motive at work? Somethings not right.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. None of this implies censorship.

And quite frankly, I'm happy for google to decide which ads they do and do not run. I hardly see that as anything akin to censorship. Unless your ISP is blocking websites, which they decidedly aren't doing. If they did, you'd have a huge outcry and it would be very bad for business.

As for this making it less likely that the poor will be able to afford broadband access, I'd happily point out that those areas in which competition has existed don't have significantly lower prices than those areas that haven't.

[converted_democrat]

34. How does this statement not imply censorship? It implies there is

already censorship. Comcast just went through this and it was found they were blocking anything with afterdowningstreet in it.
Snip
Moreover, companies such as Google are in a strategic position to become front men for mainstream corporate Internet. This financially prosperous dot com, which now rivals Time Warner in net worth, has advertising relations with Verizon and partnerships with companies such as News Corp. There have also been a number of documented instances in which Google has engaged in questionable censorship practices. It is therefore no stretch to imagine this company taking its place as gatekeeper of a government-friendly mainstream corporate Internet.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. They were blocking afterdowningstreet's e-mail.

Probably because they thought it was spam. This kind of thing happens frequently. I know it happened to my non-politically-affilliated company on several occasions when we'd sent out opt-in mass mailings. Generally, it is noticed immediately and corrected soon after. As for Google, it's not a monopoly. It's a private company, not a public service. Google has a huge ad volume, and sometimes things get blocked for the wrong reasons. That's true of all ad content - not just liberal political content. I've seen republicans bitching about the same thing from google, but the fact of the matter is they have restrictions and try to enforce them, but don't always get it right. This nonsense of accusing google of censoring liberal political content is insane. Go type "impeach bush" into google and look at the ads that show up.

[napi21]

35. I have one question about your competition point.

Yes, there is competition where I live...between cable and DSL with the phone company. The reason I've never made any change is that they both charge the same price! Why should I go through all the aggrivation of changing my email everywhere for no good reason>

However, my son lives about 45 minutes south of us, and his local utility company offers high speed internet service for $11.95 a month! He did tell me that my cable service was a little faster than his, but not enough difference to compensate for a $38.00 a month difference!!!! (My bill is $49.95!)

As I understand it, the new ruling in favor of the cable and phone companies hurts the local utility companies like the one he uses for his internet service, and will stop any others from doing their own as well.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. For that price...

...there are probably lots of restrictions on what you can do with it, or forced advertising content viewing or some such nonsense.

This ruling shouldn't impact local utilities at all, assuming they own the lines (and it sounds like that's the case here.)

[napi21]

41. Yes, they do own the lines. There are no more ads on his than

there are on mine. And there are no restrictions. Believe me, you'd have to know my son! He's a picky as hell! If there wre any restrictions, he'd be screaming!!!

I don't know how they do it! All the people he tells about it at work don't even believe it!

I can only assume, they were either laying new utility lines or some other lines and simply layed the cable at the same time. They must be amortising the costs together, or JUST the cost of the cable, letting the cost of excavation etc. all be absorbed by the phone/ electric side.

I only wish I could have the same opportunity!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. I'm glad you said it.

Makes my life easier to just be able to say "you're right."

:)

[oc2002]

29. ..agreed.. too much conspiracy thinking in that article,.

..especialy wt something as complex and divers as the net. Even China, which does block certain sites, is not able to keep up with the net.

its like trying to hold sand under water at the beach, its impossible.

[livinginphotographs]

32. Well said.

I'm on dial-up on home, so yes, there are still some of us out there.

[Matariki]

40. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. n/t

[Mairead]

54. I had the same reaction--this is highly overblown Chicken-Little-ism

It took me to the end of the 'article' to realise that all they were talking about was cable piggybacking. That's a bad decision, but it hardly merits their sky-is-falling claim.

Edit: I just read the NYT article, and it mentions that the FCC is thinking of re-construing the law that disconnects wire ownership from wire use. That would indeed allow the big players to once again force out the independents who are piggybacking on their wire.

Which suggests to me that it's time to inundate Congress with demands that they make the law unambiguous, so that the FCC can't 'interpret' it in an anti-competitive way. They should at the same time include cable in the wire/content separation.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

19. How on earth are we ever going to stop them?

I'm sitting here dumbfounded,
quite depressed,
feeling like all the work I'm doing
is for not.

This fucking just took the wind out of my sails.
I gotta go for a walk.

[demobrit]

39. This is the "quiet" attack on our Freedoms

[salvorhardin]

42. I agree with DS1 on this

This article is nothing but a hamfisted attempt at raising hysteria to boost readership. That it works so well shouldn't be surprising though because the author reveals an inherent misunderstanding of what the internet is, an ignorance shared by the majority of his readers as well as most of our lawmakers.

The internet is not a thing. It is an agreement. It is thousands of arcane protocols -- procedures for exchanging information that we all agree to use, more or less.

I won't repeat the sound arguements that others have made, rather I'll just take this opportunity to flog one of my favorite essays on the internet (again).

World of Ends
What the Internet Is and How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else.
by Doc Searls and David Weinberger

The Nutshell
1. The Internet isn't complicated
2. The Internet isn't a thing. It's an agreement.
3. The Internet is stupid.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
5. All the Internet's value grows on its edges.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
8. The Internet’s three virtues: a) No one owns it, b) Everyone can use it, c) Anyone can improve it
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already.

Full essay here.

[Stand and Fight]

43. This is nothing more than alarmist nonsense.

I see that this thread has received a total of 15 votes for the Greatest Page. I wish that there was a way that I could vote against a thread, because this is the first time I've come across anything that needs to be counter-balanced. There is nothing "great" about this article. It contains a lot of alarmist tripe, and attempts to draw conclusions where none should be drawn. While I do believe that the government could TRY to censor the Internet, I do not see this as being the way they would go about it. The argument given by the author fails to persuade me into believing the premise of his submission; that is, I only come away thinking the guy is a kook -- not that he is on to anything whatsoever. There is also the grave fallacy of the argument that the case was kept quite, yet we are able to read about all of it right here.

PollyAnna, PollyAnna, is that you? :eyes:

[AuntiBush]

44. Here's Where They Hit A HUGE SNAG "if" this is Done...

Simple Deduction:

1. If us (US Citizens) can't get out on the internet, then our feet hit the pavement and I know where I'll be heading.

2. This would shut-down the Rethugs, Repuks & Holy-Money-Rollers from their home-based fundies.

No way. DC would be crushed with tons of Repuks & Dem citizens "and" I'd have no need for my dial-out company. If at that point all I'd see on the tube would be obvious major propaganda, I turn of my Satellite, too.

I'll never read another newspaper again, assuming our freedoms are gone for good, rather I'd sell it all and head for, oh I dunno, NZ maybe?

Of course the latter was on my mind if they even think of touching my Social Security.

[bananas]

46. "a leashed puppy is still a puppy"

Here are the last four paragraphs from a June 27 NYT article about it.
Scalia dissented, and makes a comparison to pet stores.
Interesting dialog between Scalia and Thomas...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/technology/27cnd-broadband.html

Court Says Cable Operators Don't Have to Give Access to Rivals
By SAUL HANSELL
Published: June 27, 2005

<snip>

In a dissent, Justice Scalia, wrote that the commission's ruling was trying to further a free-market agenda through "an implausible
reading of the statute, and has thus exceeded the authority given it by Congress."

Justice Scalia rejected the commission's argument that cable Internet service combines Internet access, which is communication, with
additional services, like e-mail.

"The pet store may have a policy of selling puppies only with leashes, but any customer will say that it does offer puppies because
a leashed puppy is still a puppy, even though it is not offered on a stand-alone basis," he said.

Justice Thomas, in his decision, responded: "One can own a dog without buying a leash. By contrast, the commission reasonably
concluded, a consumer cannot purchase Internet service without also purchasing a connection to the Internet and the transmission
always occurs in connection with information processing."

[Tux]

47. Wish I owned a tin foil company

I'd be rich today.

Let's get some facts together.

1. TCP/IP (the computer protocol that is the basis of the Internet) is owned by no one.
2. So what if ABC, CNN, Fox News, etc don't do real journalism? They haven't done that in years.
3. Once I own a domain, I own it. If I don't want porn pics on my domain for the world to see, I can censor it.
4. This means that ISPs aren't required to share their bandwidth. Period.
5. Considering the number of Web sites hosted in US alone, it is impossible to censor them all. And we'd have to fight more wars to censor other nations' Web sites.
6. Even if Micro$oft did add a censorship feature to the next version of Windows, we can still use Macs or Linux.
7. File sharing isn't illegal. It's the sharing of copyrighted material without the copyright's owner consent. I can still file share Linux ISOs if I want and not be arrested.
8. A little censorship would harm ecomerce which is still large. Money matters and corporations won't stand if they get caught in the mess.
9. Don't like this ruling, start your own ISP. If poor people have a hard time, do as a friend of mine did when he managed an ISP: set up a wireless network so that it reaches a mass area (so several miles), connect it to your Internet connection (which an ISP owns access to the Net through the gov), and sell wireless cards that are cheap. Cheap wireless access. Geeks will love you.
10. It's a crazy ass theory. It could happen but people, there is more to the Net than Web and email. Certain protocols can also create an other Internet if needed from scratch.

[loftycity]

48. Will Eminent Domain have rule over the the Internet?

Just cruious on this one...
The exercise of eminent domain is not limited merely to real property. Governments may also condemn the value in a contract such as a franchise agreement (which is why many franchise agreements will stipulate that in condemnation proceedings, the franchise itself has no value).

In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that "public purpose" of the property be demonstrated. Over the years the definition of "public purpose" has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of generating more tax revenue for the local government. Critics contend this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and tramples personal property rights(http://reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/public_use_corporate_abuse.php) this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and tramples personal property rights.

http://www.answers.com/topic/eminent-domain





:think:

[queeg]

50. Loosten that tin foil hat a little

This is a rambling screed against censorship in the fist and last few paragraphs with a bunch of mindless blither blather in between. --- the author makes some wildly improbable leaps of faith here, and completely mis-applies much case law.---and the sownong street memo makes a guest appearance of course.
the Authors main point that he takes a wild roundabout path to reach seems to be:
Whoever controls the conduit controls the content.

All I can say to this one is No Shit Sherlock, ---took you a PhD. to figure that out all by yourself did it?--sounds a whole lot like most versions of the media--newspapers, TV, radio---why should the internet be any different?---one thing the author fails to either grasp or explain is that the internet is a global medium, and that as such there can never be complete censorship.

The old Soviet union understood this completely where access to things such as Xerox machines, fax machines, and typewriters were controled because it was understood that these were methods of transmitting information quickly. What they were unable to do however was to save their government.

[loftycity]

53. UN at odds over internet's future

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4692743.stm
Last Updated: Monday, 18 July, 2005, 11:56 GMT 12:56 UK



UN at odds over internet's future

The report will be presented to Kofi Annan on 18 July
A UN group charged with deciding how the net should be run has failed to reach a decision.
The group's report suggests four possible futures for net governance that range from no change to complete overhaul.

The proposals will go forward to a key UN net and society conference due to take place in November.



Others, particularly delegates from developing nations, resent Icann's role and the fact that the US has kept control of it.

Now the WGIG has issued its report about net governance and has tabled four possible futures for what should be done about policy issues, such as spam and hi-tech crime, that fall outside Icann's narrow technical remit.



The one common aspect of all four proposals is the creation of some sort of talking shop that will give governments and others a say in how the net develops.

The four proposals will be sent forward to the second World Summit on the Information Society which is due to take place in Tunisia in November 2005 where delegates will pick their favourite option.