Congress is selling out the Internet

[chaosgone]

I got this email, and at first thought it was a joke. But then I read a news article at http://news.com.com/New+group+aims+to+s ... 64384.html

 

 

 

and decided to sign the petition at: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet

 

 

 

Subject: Congress is selling out the Internet

 

 

 

Hi,

 

 

 

Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet.

 

 

 

Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon.com doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer.

 

 

 

Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says, "The internet can't be free."

 

 

 

The free and open Internet is under seige--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here:

 

 

 

http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet

 

 

 

A list of all the ways you might be affected by Net Neutrality is located on the bottom of this link: http://civic.moveon.org/alerts/savetheinternet.html

 

 

 

Thanks!

[indy500fan]

this is a sticky situation, since the main lines for the internet all across the country (im just going from the united states standpoint) were paid by tax payers money. that in itself is against my beliefs (capitalist) so this situation is not a problem there. had the telecom compaines paid for the cable, then its theirs and they can do what they wish. but they didnt, and once again government intervention into private affairs screws everything up.

[nvw08]

Ouch, I hope this dosen't go through :(

[runesmithie]

Might want to watch out for this too

 

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl ... 24/0358210

 

 

 

An anonymous reader writes "Representative Lamar Smith is sponsoring the Intellectual Property Protection Act [CC]. The new bill is designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Among the provisions is lowering the standards for 'willful copyright violation' and increasing the corresponding prison term to 10 years." More information [CC] is also available at publicknowledge.org.

[fire_skulll300]

so the us controls the internet eh? aaaaa wrong the internet is international

[ford_rule]

so the us controls the internet eh? aaaaa wrong the internet is international

 

 

 

yes i thought that too, as i am in australia. yet it is only a matter of time after the US do it until other countries corporations decide to follow suit.

[punk4ever]

so the us controls the internet eh? aaaaa wrong the internet is international

 

 

 

Actually the United States does control/own the internet since it originated here in 1983 at a University (forget the name of it).

 

 

 

http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/200 ... 5-499.html

[Anesthesia]

so the us controls the internet eh? aaaaa wrong the internet is international

 

 

 

Actually the United States does control/own the internet since it originated here in 1983 at a University (forget the name of it).

 

 

 

http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/200 ... 5-499.html

 

 

 

Do you know what the internet is? Evidently not. That link is a US source and is therefore unreliable, the US just thinks it should control the internet because, well let's face it, they want to control everything.

 

 

 

They don't control/own it because the internet is not one thing. It is millions of machines all over the world which aren't owned by the US and aren't in their jurisdiction. The concept may have originated there but to say that that is a good reason for them to control it is like saying that Guglielmo Marconi invented the radio therefore Italy should control the world's radio transmissions.

 

 

 

Your point is further flawed because if inventing the first packet switched network gave the US the right to control the internet, Sir Tim Berners Lee would have complete control over the WWW, which is what this thread is about.

[Bubsa]

so the us controls the internet eh? aaaaa wrong the internet is international

 

 

 

Actually the United States does control/own the internet since it originated here in 1983 at a University (forget the name of it).

 

 

 

http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/200 ... 5-499.html

 

 

 

...You can't possibly believe that, can you?

[____]

IIRC - the US Military invented the internet. At least I think it was the US.

 

I'd check but I can't be arsed. I just remember that it was one nations Military.

 

 

 

And as we all know - they are in so many ways a law unto themself.

 

 

 

Anyhow, if America wants to do that to their citizens, restrict it to their citizens only. They have no right to pass laws which obstruct internet access to the rest of the world.

[Phil]

Yeah saying anyone owns the internet is kind of stupid.

 

 

 

Yep rick, i believe it was the US military, but as you said they have no right to control the whole internet.

[Bubsa]

Well, it certainly wasn't Al Gore:

 

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

[dusqi]

I cannot see this benefitting consumers. Neutrality is a right concept that should be upheld - just like freedom of speech. Once a company is allowed to charge extra for providing priority bandwidth to websites that can afford it, there will be no incentive to make data transfer better for sites that do not pay, in fact the incentive will be to make non-paying sites as slow as possible, to force more of them to pay. The free sites we know and love (such as this one) will either be slow, or they'll be forced to find ways to generate serious revenue.

[Giordano]

Orginally, the Internet was a system for U.S. military units to communicate with each other.

 

Eventually I knew the U.S. wanted to control the Internet. Hell, they might just attack Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa, and Austrailia and get over with it :roll:

[weezcake]

I thought the internet was created as an academic network. Scientists and scholars could send their work and research to others much more quickly.

[Phil]

I thought the internet was created as an academic network. Scientists and scholars could send their work and research to others much more quickly.

 

I've always been taught it was the military, possibly for research and scientific work though.

[____]

I thought the internet was created as an academic network. Scientists and scholars could send their work and research to others much more quickly.

 

I've always been taught it was the military, possibly for research and scientific work though.

It was pretty much a mix of the both from all i know about how it came to be.

 

A new form of communication to share all types of information between military sections and whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

But what does it matter now :P

[adthegreat-]

I was taught that it was scientist's, not sure what nationality.

 

 

 

But after reading abit about the history of it all, i think the military did create sending information, but scientists created html as a way to show tablular information, hence

[weezcake]

I got an email from moveon.org showing me the vote counts -- the subcommittee voted 23-8 against net neutrality. The House Committee voted today 34-23 against it, which is at least some progress towards beating down the bill.

 

 

 

The next step is bringing the bill to the house itself. Congress will probably vote on the bill soon and hopefully, the bill will fail. :?

[bearofthunder]

this is a sticky situation, since the main lines for the internet all across the country (im just going from the united states standpoint) were paid by tax payers money. that in itself is against my beliefs (capitalist) so this situation is not a problem there. had the telecom compaines paid for the cable, then its theirs and they can do what they wish. but they didnt, and once again government intervention into private affairs screws everything up.

 

 

 

Meh, I don't have an explanation. I just don't like it. Not one bit. I don't want google.com to open faster than amazon.com because google paid more money to my broadband company. I want google.com to open faster because they have better equipment.

[Vape]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet