I AGREE! but i wasnt suprised by all this... kinda saw it all coming :/
Dizz - December 19, 2006, 23:27
Truest point is "It happened to TV, it happened to Radio, it could happen to the internet."
Dantalion - December 20, 2006, 00:19
Dizz, it goes even beyond that point. This (the net) is the area where everybody experiences ultimate freedom. The principle of net neutrality should apply to the real world as well, otherwise no country can call itself "free". It is only that we know this ultimate freedom only on the web, and it scares the most powerfull people. If you look at community based sites: in fact it is the ultimate democracy: every single person is a small but EQUAL cell in a huge neural network. If you disturb that balance, you're creating a sick soul, scarring the world and making the system work like the mind of a psycho.
Dantalion - December 20, 2006, 00:20
Damn my english is bad, but I hope you understand the point :)
Brody - December 20, 2006, 00:54
Internet 2
pre (guest) - December 20, 2006, 04:07
i agree with this video, however, what is wrong with companies building a faster network and charging for people to use it? they built it right? thats a free market.
Oyasumi (guest) - December 20, 2006, 05:29
Yes, you're right. But, on another hand, they could pressurize line owners to put some perks on fee-supported sites, and restrict the bandwidth use of poor webbies. That's how lobbying works... And by extention : capitalism (or neoliberalism, as you want)
fake (guest) - December 20, 2006, 12:26
"could pressurize line owners to put some perks on fee-supported sites" like as in ...pressurize... my tires? "and restrict the bandwidth use of poor webbies." they are building a faster one, not cutting bandwidth? "That's how lobbying works... And by extention : capitalism (or neoliberalism, as you want)" um No?
Re:fake (guest) - December 20, 2006, 13:54
If they can build a faster pay-for 'internet' what makes you think they won't slow down the free version? The free one, afterall, is taking bandwidth from the pay service.
Deleted0001 - December 20, 2006, 15:43
Ah, man! I can't stand it! I sure don't want anyone to mess the Internet up so I'll get a slower net than I already got! Save the Internet indeed!
Son of Zion (guest) - December 20, 2006, 15:48
Well what it all comes down to in the end is money, and if there is ppl that are willing to pay im sure they gonna implement it, but! The mani focus here will be on how the rest of the *FREE* world will act on this, sins this will surly not be seen as a good act frome the US and im sure the EU will try and block it, and lets hope they do. sins otherwise im sure that in the next 10 years we will have the iron internet....
youst like the one in china, Eu have there own internet and USA there own and asia there own, and if u want to acces any other then your own u need to pay up. lets hope that never happens sins then we are surly back in the 1800.
hmm (guest) - December 20, 2006, 16:46
As pre points out, whats there to stop them from creating a high priority net besides the real one where only paying customers have high-speed access to their clients? It's capitalism at work.
The negative effects will come when and if customers to the telcos start complaining about slow speeds to OTHER sites (which will be many, all over seas on, wikipedia, blogs etc) and eventually even change their ISP to another one.
AOL and the likes where the masses gets their internet fix will probably implement this sooner or later and the smart internet users will stay at a arms length away from such "bad" isps. It's all about free market.
chains - December 20, 2006, 17:28
Whats the second last song? I can't rememeber the name of it :)
Dantalion - December 21, 2006, 10:26
That would be spam.
Think about net neutrality this way: What if the white house would say: all newspapers that are with us, are free, but all the newspapers that are against us, cost $10,-.... that could happen to the internet, change it to a sort of propaganda broadcasting network for governments and multinational companies.
Dantalion - December 21, 2006, 10:30
A newspaper should be objective. An ISP kinda functions as a newspaper: it brings info to people. So an ISP should be objective. I think they should be able to create an extra (premium) subscription, for websites with premium content, but they should deliver all normal free content in their basic subscription.
SaveThePorn (guest) - December 21, 2006, 17:34
Jesus, without the internet where could i get my free porn, movie, games and programs >.
nuke21 - December 22, 2006, 02:15
Lol SaveThePorn, I agree 100%!
..Dantalion..? (guest) - December 22, 2006, 04:55
umm, its either the damn government control the damn world, or the damn newspaper owners the control the damn world. or they are in the same boat so it doesn't matter.
zet (guest) - December 23, 2006, 03:19
The argument about companies as owners of the lines is not a right one, as they already charge Us. Charge other companies, that charge other companies, who are our net providers. This is like a double taxation. And as far as right now our access is limited only by speed of the connection and as far as paysites that enable you to download their sources faster after paying a fee are absolutely okay the changes they are trying to implement strike directly into an unlimited and fair access to the network sources and this way they are trying to control the information flowing through the lines and content of webpages, which is unacceptable.
Nero - December 23, 2006, 19:49
K! i make a new network, called Nerowork, it only cost 1$ a year, wich will make me about 7,5 billions a year!
Nero - December 23, 2006, 19:50
K! i make a new network, called Nerowork, it only cost 1$ a year, wich will make me about 7,5 billions a year!
Dantalion - December 24, 2006, 15:11
lol Nero, good idea. but the "save the internet"-campaign is there to prevent us from greedy people like you :P I don't want to be restricted and only be able to watch your choice of crappy porn... :P (not intended as flame, just to prove the point about this clip)
steh (guest) - December 24, 2006, 20:22
Won't affect users outside the US, and if access to US sites from elsewhere is slower, who cares, we'll just click to the next site. Your loss.
Jimmy (guest) - December 31, 2006, 08:19
They used the Roots as background music. This video kicks ass from the get go.
costre - January 7, 2007, 15:50
We had a good run. But the tycoon fatcats are once again going to screw us over, and once again, the american public is going to take it up the tail pipe. If someone important starts to protest, the right wing nuts are going to call that guy a homosexual, and all votes will then automatically fall on the republicans fascist oppression bills.
european (guest) - May 7, 2007, 14:32
On topic, the internet is currently too big to limit anything without massively losing peoples' attention (So, I have to pay a certain company for viewing this site? guess i'll go somewhere else)
Off Topic, its funny how the people of concern in this clip are not 'people of the world' but 'americans'. Did you forget the rest of us or dont you care?
knows the truth (guest) - June 20, 2007, 22:23
we will ALWAYS see things on the 'internet highways' as OUR GOVERMET WILL ALLOW...GET REAL PEOPLE, WE ARE ALL BEING 'FED BULLSHIT', shoved down our throats, mind control & anything & everything 'THEY' want to do !! What has happened to the Constitution? Freedom of 'Speech', & the biggest one, FREEDOM!!???
Comments