Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
is this little snippet briefly mentioned in that article:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7D81F39F93AA2575BC0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
an example of 'sexing up' the news from 1993, twice.
On the comcast thing, why not come up with a new Ad detailing your exchange with comcast, on them refusing your first Ad. then you can say, "ok dont run that first Ad, we'll run this one in all your markets." I'll donate after I tell them i'm canceling my service.
Expecting Comcast to run the ad was overly optimistic at best. However, a complete record of their objections and communications will be useful when it comes time to oppose further media consolidation, and to break up the monoliths that currently exist.
for his support of a bill to expand dramatically the President's warrantless eavesdropping powers and to immunize telecoms (such as Comcast) which broke the law in enabling the Bush administration to spy on their customers with no warrants.
I must have missed the evidence of Comcast illegally wiretapping anyone. Can someone provide any docs to support that claim?
Aside from that, I think references to gulags, mass murder, and political assassinations should have been included along with the Communist Chinese and Soviets line. Yep, that would have made a very tasty ad indeed. Heh.
I love this part....
Whatever one might think about the legal right of corporations to control our public debates by exercising power of this sort, it is impossible to deny how corrupt and damaging it is to have corporations be able to use their control over media outlets to limit and suppress the terms of our most important political debates in this manner.
Damn that rule of law. How dare Comcast refuse to air an ad attacking it. Why...they should be made to lay down and punch themselves in the face if Glenn demands it. Luckily they aren't really controlling debate, they are declining to air an attack ad. A really clumsy one at that. Keep up the good work.
Flogging wrong forms of network neutrality is one tactic used to try to kill network neutrality.
What network neutrality should not mean:
Is that it has a tendency to quash the rollout of VoIP services, aka internet phones. The more enforced neutrality you have the worse it is for VoIP. Why? Because it becomes impossible to sell packet prioritization and VoIP is extremely sensitive to QoS (Quality of Service) isochronous packet priority ordering.
What network neutrality should mean - the telco is like the post office, offering standard rates for your packets, with various service options. The Post Office for instance offers various priority mail options for which you pay differently. The telco cannot offer a discount or charge more because your traffic is or is not with a specific business.
That is, given a service on the web and a consumer of that service on the web, the prioritization of the IP packets between the provider and consumer should be upto the consumer and the provider. E.g., if I want a high quality video feed from Disney, and Disney offers various quality of service options, what I pick is between me and Disney, and not upto the carrier. What I'm charged (or Disney is charged and then passes on to me) should be on the same terms for any other video vendor.
you could always accidentally leave them in an unprotected sector of the server, like by accident.
AT&T/SBC/Bellsouth/Cingular is bigger than AT&T was in 1984 when it was broken up. And now with Alltel (and MCI) sold to Verizon and Sprint on the ropes and possibly being sold to Deutsche Telecom you will have 3 Mega phone companies in the US compared to 12 viable competitors a decade ago.
In the cable space Earthlink will fold soon leaving TW, Comcast, Cox, Brightlink (as a grey cable provider) competing with AT&T DSL.
And in case you haven't noticed, broadband of all flavors including wireless broadband, is at least a decade behind the rest of the world, here in the US. It's really crap. In South Korea you can get 6Mbps to your phone which is about 6-8x the average rate you can get in the US from the best and most expensive 3G service. In Japan you can have concert tickets sent right to your phone where you can beam them at the ticket "puncher" at the venue. A decade ago you needed permission from Deutsche Telecom to move a phone in your own house. Now they're eating our lunch.
It's not a simple "I want" kind of thing. You have to build out an infrastructure that can do that. And no one will when the legality of it is mushy. I have 4 different vendors piggybacking on my cable - if one of them can allow me to prioritize then they're going to do it at the expense of the other 3 vendors. So If I let Vonage cut to the head of the line, AT&T Callvantage, Earthlink and Time Warner are all going to suffer. It's axiomatic. Otherwise you're going to force consumers into a lock-in scenario with a single vendor which is not where you want to go.
The real problem with internet service is that companies cant actually provide the bandwidth they promise across the board. The offer you, say, 5 mbits down, but cant actually provide that much bandwidth to all of their customers at the same time. Instead they work on the same principle as insurance companies; they hope that most people wont use all of their bandwidth all the time. It really has nothing to do with neutrality and much to do with providers essentially lying to their customers about what they can provide.
As I recall from my long ago days in law school, doesn't Art. I, ยง 9 of the U.S. Constitution state, in pertinent part:
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." U.S. Constitution
According to FindLaw:
"ex post facto law: a civil or criminal law with retroactive effect" FindLaw
Granted, tis folly to expect our currently constituted Supreme Court to render a honest ruling on the matter, however, with the Constitution so unambiguous on this point, why is the question of "retroactive immunity" even being seriously raised?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
