Disturbing Phone Call - Attack on Internet Freedom

[snot]

My boyfriend is a multi-media developer. Today he got a call from someone wanting to "warn" him that government regulation to ensure "network neutrality" would prevent providers from providing new services. For better or worse, my boyfriend didn't let him get very far, rightly responding that he WANTS the government to regulate the Internet to the extent necessary in order to PREVENT big corporations from controlling it. My boyfriend didn't get the name of the group that was calling, but the caller ID was 1-202-000-0000 (NOT a local number).

Somebody is apparently pulling out all the stops.

If you haven't already done so, pls sign this petition to Congress in favor of net neutrality: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1730

For more info re- network neutrality, see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/net-neutrality-why-are_b_20311.html :

"Who besides the telecom companies looking to cash in would be against keeping the Internet a level playing field? No one.

"That's why groups as diverse as MoveOn.org and the Gun Owners of America -- as well as the editorial pages of the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Christian Science Monitor -- are backing Net Neutrality legislation. As Gun Owner spokesman Craig Fields put it: "Whenever you see people on the far left and far right joining together about something Congress is about to do, it's been my experience that what Congress is about to do is basically un-American."

"Yet, at the moment, the forces of corporate greed are winning the day in Congress -- Rep. Markey's Net Neutrality amendment was voted down in committee last week (although his provision garnered more support than expected).

(snip)

"It doesn't help matters that the telecom lobbyists are muddying the waters by creating faux grassroots groups like "Hands Off the Internet" to hide the industry's Internet-grabbing agenda."

[NVMojo]

1. keep this kicked!

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

8. If only we had a database of all phone calls made within the US!

We could figure out who's behind this secret scheme.

[PublicWrath]

2. recommended! n/t

[tuvor]

3. What's the deal with MoveOn backing this?

This is the second post I've seen that mentions them backing a program that seems to be anathema to progressives.

[snot]

5. No, no --

the "net neutrality" legislation is a GOOD thing -- intended to PREVENT corps. from taking it over and gaining the power to control what "hits" our searches yield. So please DO support the legislation!

(If you read the HuffPo article, she too complains about the confusing name of this legislation.)

[tuvor]

7. Okay. Now your OP is making more sense. Recommended!

Thanks, and sorry for not reading more carefully.

Freakout averted.

[Julius Civitatus]

12. See, they are wining: they are confusing the public

See how it works? They are muddying the waters with blatantly FRAUDULENT commercials. Right now people have not clue what Net Neutrality means. In blue states they are using commercials claiming Net Neutrality is bad for people, a ploy by big business against the consumer. In red states, the commercials claim that Net Neutrality is some hippie commie plot to corrupt your children through web and cable TV.

Whoever is behind this campaign, their intentions are to confuse and mess the topic until people no longer know what to think on this issue.

They learned this from the master: Rove, who made a career with this very trick.

[PurgedVoter]

6. Here is the problem with the term Net Neutrality,

It sound like one of the lies the "Conservatives" have been feeding. In fact Net Neutrality is what we currently have. The opposite would be the ability of the large telecom monopolies to decide what you can see on the net. If net neutrality falls, then you will never again be able to see articles about net neutrality. Corporations will be able to sensor what you see. The internet will become Clear Channel. Those who speak out will be reduced in speed, access, and linkage. Net Neutrality means that on the body of the internet cloud, every communication has equal rights. If we loose net Neutrality, then some sources will become more equal.

[Recursion]

13. Let me rip off the metaphor from "Ask a Ninja"

Network neutrality is like going to the hot dog stand and watching the pretty hot dog stand worker in the cool hat make lemonade.

What the telco and cable ISPs want (which isn't called anything other than "not network neutrality") is like the guy that owns the boardwalk putting a wall in front of the hot dog stand and saying "why don't you watch this, over here. It's a big hairy guy squeezing bacon grease."

And you're like, "but I want to watch the pretty hot dog stand worker".

And the ISPs are like, "yeah, but we've got this new stuff for you that we'd rather have you watch."

And you're like, "well, why can't I just watch what I was watching already?"

OK, it's better when a ninja is saying it, but still.

The point is, "network neutrality" is what we have now. Your ISP can't favor its own "content" (what an odious word) over other content. I get my bandwidth at home from Comcast, but if I want to see something that's hosted on their competitor's pipe, say, Cavalier, or Verizon, I can do that just as easily. Comcast and Verizon, et al, want to be able to limit my viewing of things outside their network.

Despite the fact that it makes free-market freepers all gooey, the Internet is actually a progressive utopia. It was built with public money, and is maintained by a not-quite-written agreement among all carriers that it is a Commons, and that the value of the Internet as a Commons exceeds whatever benefit they might gain by favoring their own part of it.

Now that all the major carriers have "content" arms, however, they want to change that. And they're using very misleading and confusing advertisement to do it.

"Network neutrality" is what we have now. It's a recognition of the principle that has guided the Internet since back in the DARPA days: carriers must be agnostic as to the source and destination of their traffic.

[Virginian]

4. 202 = Washington, DC area code. n/t

[tech3149]

9. Right on the area code

The 000-0000 indicates that the call was placed through a pbx or carrier that is capable of sending specific caller ID info(not the originating #). That suggest's a high dollar operation. Most non-profits wouldn't waste the money on hiding their origin.

[Recursion]

14. I don't know about that...

Asterisk can do that and it's free and can run on a $100 desktop (well, with $2000 PBX hardware). Getting your upstream to actually route that does take some clout, though...

[magellan]

10. Is anyone else seeing the TV ads about this?

Something about TV freedom. They're lying about what Net Neutrality is really about, tying it to the consumer desire to choose what stations they get from their cable/satellite providers, and saying how telcos are standing in the way, so "tell your congressman to vote NO on Net Neutrality". It's so bogus I want to throw something at the set every time I see it.

[Julius Civitatus]

11. TV commercials in Boston are going even further...

I spent the Memorial Day weekend in Boston, and saw a television commercial they ran several times on rotation. Basically, the TV commercial said the same thing, but went further. It claimed that Net Neutrality would "allow fat cats to restrict your services and charge you more for your Internet service." Then they prompted people to call a phone number to get more info on how to fight "Net Neutrality." (I didn't write down the number, unfortunately)

It was so mendacious and mean-spirited it made my blood boil. So basically this was a commercial made by telecom fat-cats, paid by telecom fat-cats, to make sure you oppose regulation that keeps telecom fat-cats in check. And they do it by claiming the opposite. The commercial claimed Net Neutrality was a ploy by telecom fat-cats! I wonder if this commercial is legally actionable. I mean, it's pure FRAUD! It's a pure LIE meant to confuse the public and endorse the opposite of what they want.

All this lobbying groups have learned their lessons from Karl Rove. They sure are using techniques once pioneered by the chubby Machiavelli, but now they have realized that blatant lies, fraud, and misrepresentations work, and nobody really cares.

This is the real legacy of Rove. Truth no longer matters a bit.

[AmyDeLune]

15. Signed! n/t

[Us vs Them]

16. It shows you how badly they want this

They're willing to spend money on a public campaign instead of just quietly paying off the right congresspeople. The telecom corporations want this bill to pass by a landslide, and they want a confused public support to feel good that their candidates voted the right way, just in time for re-election.

[banana republican]

17. there was TV ad in Seattle warning me that Net Neutrality was "bad" n/t

[hvn_nbr_2]

18. I think it's more than just a telecom money grab

It's to control content. Big business will be able to pay whatever fees they charge, plus they'll get price breaks just like Wal-mart and other giants get. And the telecoms will be free to price according to any criteria they want--F.R. pays 2 cents per thousand packets, DU pays $150K per packet transmitted. They'll make up some phony excuse why the price structure has to be that way.

[rman]

19. Save The Internet - video

http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=1317

===

How to deal with torrent files
To download these videos you'll need a bittorrent client such as Azerus (works on windows and mac) or micro torrent. Also see www.bittorrent.org.
http://azureus.sourceforge.net
http://www.utorrent.com

[ck4829]

20. I know who called your boyfriend

The HopOne Internet corporation.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.antispam.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-1968.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25221-202-000-0000%2522%26hl%3Den%26hs%3D6PN%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official_s%26sa%3DG

[snot]

21. COOL. Anyone know what to do with this?

The info in Post # 20 and link therein, which reads as follows:

I know who called your boyfriend

The HopOne Internet corporation.

fficial_s%26sa%3DG" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=htt...

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.antispam.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-1968.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25221-202-000-0000%2522%26hl%3Den%26hs%3D6PN%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US%20%3Cimg%20src=

Houser
05.03.2003, 12:47
k:)
Now I would register, probably wait there nothing with the next McDonalds attendance then to two nice gentlemen with dark sun glasses for one… *g*

OrgName: HopOne Internet corporation
OrgID: HOPO
ADDRESS: 1010 Wisconsin Avenue N.W.
Town center: Washington
StateProv: DC
Pos valley code: 20007-3603
Country: US
NetRange: 209.61.192.0 - 209.61.255.255
CIDR: 209.61.192.0 /18
NetName: HOPONE-DCA1-2
NetHandle: NET-209-61-192-0-1
Parent: NET-209-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
Name server: NS1.HOPONE.NET
Name server: NS2.HOPONE.NET
COMMENT: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK OF ACRES NON PORTABLE ONES
Rain DATE: 2000-06-06
Updated: 2002-04-03
TechHandle: HJ48-ARIN
TechName: Jass, Haralds
TechPhone: [phone]
TechEmail: [e-mail]
OrgTechHandle: HJ48-ARIN
OrgTechName: Jass, Haralds
OrgTechPhone: [phone]
OrgTechEmail: [e-mail]
OrgAbuseHandle: ARA13-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse Role account
OrgAbusePhone: [phone]
OrgAbuseEmail: [e-mail]